UC-NHLF 


B    3    mS    flhb 


A  Brief  Hl 

of  the  Lutheraii'l 

Church  in  America 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/briefliistoryofluOOnevericli 


A  BRILF  HISTORY 


of  the 


LUTHLRAN  CHURCH 

IN   AMERICA 


BY 


DR.  J.  L  NLVL 

Professor  of  Symbolics  and  History  of  the  Doctrines 
in  Wittent>erg  Seminary.  SprinCifield,  Ohio 


Second  Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition 


Burlington,  la. 

The  German  Literary  Board 

1916 


'V.y.-r^ 


Copyright,  1916 

5y  R.   NtUMANN 

Burlington,  la. 


LITERATURE. 


Important  Sources: 

Hallesche  Xachrichten.     Halle,  1744.   1750.  1778.     English 

edition,  Philadelphia,   1894. 
Muehlenberg's   eigene   Lebensbeschreibung,  herausgebe- 

ben  von  W.  Germann,    Allentown,  Pa.,  1881. 
Urisperger,    S.,    Sammlung    ausfuehrlicher    Xachrichten 

von  den  Salsburger  Emigranten.     Halle,  1735-1746. 
Kirchliche    Mitteilungen    aus    and    ueber    Xordamerika 

1843-1866  (being  documentary  material  for  the  origin 

of  Missouri  and  Iowa  synods). 
Ochsenford,  S.  E.,  Documentary  History  of  the  General 

Council.     Philadelphia,  1912. 
Documentary  History  of  the   Ev.  Luth.   Ministerium  of 

the  General  Council.     Philadelphia,   1898. 
Fritschel,  Geo.  J.,  Quellen  und  Dokumente  zur  Geschichte 

und  Lehrstellung  der   Iowa   Synode.     Chicago,   1916. 
Sachse,   J.   F.,    German    Pietists    of    Provincial    Pennsyl- 
vania (1694-1708),  1895. 
Finck,    W.    J.,    Lutheran    Landmarks    and    Pioneers    in 

America.     Philadelphia.   1913. 

Presentations  of  the  History  of  the  Luth.  Church  in  America 
as  a  Whole: 

Jacobs,  H.   E.,  History  of  the   Ev.  Luth.  Church   in  the 

U.  S.     Philadelphia,   1893. 
Fritschel,  Geo.  J.,  Geschichte  der  lutherischen  Kirche  in 

Amerika  auf  grund  von  Jacobs'  History  (translated 

and  enlarged)   Guetersloh,  1896. 
Wolf,   E.  J.,  The   Lutherans   in   America    (out   of   print; 

new  edition  under  consideration).     Xew  York,  1891. 
Graebner,  A.,  Geschichte  der  luth.  Kirche  Amerikas  (up 

to  1820)   St.  Louis,  1892. 

(iii) 

ivil2G551 


iv  LITF.RATURi:. 

Histories  of  Individual  Synods: 

Nicum,    J.,    Geschichte     des     New     York     Ministeriums. 

Reading,  Pa.,  1888. 
Hochstetter,  C,  Geschichte  der  Missouri-Synode.     Dres- 
den, 1885. 
Deindoerfer,  j.,  Geschichte   der   lowa-Synode.     Chicago, 

1897. 
Peter-Schmidt,  Geschichte  der  Ohio-Sjmode.     Columbus, 

1900. 
Bergh,  J.  A.,  Den  Norsk  Luterske  Kirke  i  Xordamerika. 

Minneapolis,  1914. 
Trabert,  G.  H.,   English   Lutheranism   in   the  Northwest. 

Philadelphia,  1914. 
Bernheim,    G.    D.,    German    Settlements    and    the    Luth. 

Church  in  the  Carolinas.     Philadelphia,  1872. 
Schmauk,    Theo.    E.,    History    of    the    Luth.    Church    in 

Pennsylvania    (1638-1820),   Philadelphia.   1903. 

Biographies: 

Sachse,  J.  F..  Justus  Falckner. 

Mann,  \\\  J..  Life  and  Times  of  Muehlenberg.  Phil- 
adelphia, 1888. 

Mann,  W.  J.,  Heinrich    Melchior   Aluehlcnberg. 

Spaeth,  A.,  Dr.  W.  J.   Mann  —  In   Memoriam. 

Spaeth,  A.,  Dr.  Chas.  Porterfield  Krauth.  Philadelphia. 
1898-1909. 

Spaeth,  A.,  Alemorial  of  B.  M.  Schmucker. 

Gerberding,  G.  H.,  Wm.  A.  Passavant.     Greenville,  1911. 

Sihler,  W.,  Autobiographic.     St.  Louis. 

Wyneken,  Friedrich.     St.  Louis. 

Guenther,  M.,  Ein  Lebensbild  von  Dr.  Walther.  St. 
Louis. 

Fuerbringer,  L.,  Briefe  Dr.  Walthers.     St.  Louis,  1915. 

With  Reference  to  Doctrinal  Differences: 

Distinctive  Doctrines  and  Usages  of  the  Synods  of  the 
Lutheran    Church.     Philadelphia,   1914. 


LITLLRATUKE.  V 

Schmidt.  I-".  A.,  Die  lowaschen  Missverstaendnisse  uiui 
Bemaentelungen.  St.  Louis.  (Also  the  reply  to  this : 
Fritschel,  S.  &  G.  Iowa  and  Missouri.  Mendota, 
111.,    1878). 

Xeve,  J.  L.,  Die  wichtigsteii  Unterscheiduiigsinerkmale 
der  Luth.  Synodtii  Amerikas.  Second  enlarged  edi- 
tion.     Burlington.    1915. 

Grosse,  J.,  Unterscheidungslehren.  St.  Louis,  1909.  (The 
replies  to  this:  Xicum.  J..  Xotgedrungene  Abwehr. 
Rochester.  1890.  Fritschel.  S..  Unterscheidungs- 
lehren. Chicago.  1893.  Neve,  J.  L..  Thoughts  on 
Confessional    Questions.      Burlington,    1911.) 

With  Reference  to  the  Discussion  on  Predestination: 

Zorn,  C.   M..   Bekehrung  &  Gnadenwahl. 

Tressel,  E.  L.  S.,  The  Error  of  Modern  Missouri.  (Con- 
tributions by  Dr.  F.  W.  Stellhorn.  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt 
and   others).     Columbus,   1897. 

Pieper,  E..  Conversion  and  Election.     St.  Louis,  1915. 

Fritschel,  Geo.  J.,  Zur  Einigung  der  lutherischen  Kirchc. 
Dubuque,  1914. 

Keyser,  L.  S..  Election  and  Conversion.  Burlington, 
1914. 

Schuettc.  C.  H.  L..  Testimonies  in  Furtherance  of  a 
Union  and  Peace  in  the  Truth.     Columbus.  1914. 

Jacobs-Haas.    Lutheran  Cyclopedia.    New  York,  1899. 


FOREWORD. 

TilK  "Brief  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
America,"  pubHshed  in  1903,  which  has  been 
kindly  admitted  as  a  text-book  in  almost  all 
theological  seminaries  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this 
country,  herewith  makes  its  appearance  in  a  second 
edition.  It  is  double  the  size  of  the  original  volume. 
It  has  been  thought  best  to  omit  the  statistics,  which 
occupied  thirteen  pages  of  the  first  edition.*  Yet. 
although  we  present  a  larger  book,  w^e  have  held  fast 
to  the  original  title,  "Brief  History,"  because  a  com- 
plete, or  even  an  approximately  complete,  history  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  would  require  at 
least  three  volumes  of  the  size  of  this  one. 

As  in  the  previous  edition,  so  in  this  one,  it  has 
been  our  aim  to  furnish  a  text-book  that  would  serve 
as  a  guide  for  instruction  in  theological  seminaries. 
Students  and  teachers  alike  prefer  a  book  that  is 
easily  read.  Even  a  seeming  confusion  of  facts  tries 
their  patience.  For  this  reason  our  "Brief  History" 
views  the  material  from  the  viewpoint  of  extension 
and  organization  rather  than  from  that  of  confessional 
development. t  The  numerous  divisions  and  the  use 
of  heavy  type  even  in  the  body  of  the  text  have  been 
made  in   the  interest   of  perspicuity,  and   to  aid   the 


•Aside  from  the  fact  that  statistics  are  subject  to  change,  they 
arc  found  in  the  yearbooks  of  the  various  synods  up-to-date.  Brief 
reviews  of  the  statistical  status  of  synods  arc  ^-iven  in  connection 
with  their  history. 

tSee    introductory    remarks   on    page   17 

(1) 


2  FOREWORD. 

teacher  and  student  alike  readily  to  catch  the  leading- 
thoughts.    Qui  bene  distinguit^  bene  docet. 

In  presenting  the  history  of  the  different  synods, 
the  author  has  sincerely  aimed  at  impartiality.  He 
has  not  intentionally  magnified  the  work  of  one  synod 
or  minimized  the  merits  of  another.  In  presenting 
the  history  of  his  own  synod,  he  has  not  tried  to  cover 
up  the  short-comings  of  the  past.  True,  the  confes- 
sional history  of  the  General  Synod  has  been  treated 
very  extensively,  but  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that 
this  is  the  common  history  of  a  number  of  synods.* 

In  the  case  of  the  doctrinal  controversies  between 
the  synods  of  Missouri,  Buffalo,  Iowa  and  Ohio  the 
task  was  especially  difficult.  In  the  first  edition  the 
author  himself  wrote  this  chapter.  Considering  the 
fact,  however,  that  neither  the  Missouri  Synod  nor 
its  opponents  have  a  documentary  history  and  that  it 
is  impossible  for  an  outsider  correctly  to  interpret  the 
controversies  in  all  their  phases,  he  invited  Prof.  Geo. 
J.  Fritschel,  who  has  made  these  matters  a  special 
study,  to  furnish  the  chapter  in  question.  He  en- 
deavored to  secure  a  representative  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  to  agree  with  Prof.  Fritschel  on  what  must  be 
regarded  as  incontestable  historical  facts,  or  at  least 
to  add  corrections,  if  such  were  needed,  in  order  to 
put  before  students  the  altera  pars;  but  he  did  not 
succeed.  Every  synod  should  publish  a  documentary 
history.  The  General  Council  has  such  a  work,  com- 
piled by  Dr.  S.  E.  Ochsenford.  The  General  Synod 
took  a  step  in  this  direction  at  its  last  convention  at 
Akron,  Ohio  (1915).  Prof.  Geo.  J.  Fritschel  is  now 
at  work  preparing  one  of  the  Iowa  Synod. 

*Compare   remarks  on   page  88. 


FOREWOKU. 


A  suggestion  of  Dr.  O.  Zoecklcr.  who  reviewed  the 
German  edition  of  this  work  in  the  Evangelische 
Kirchenzeitung,  caused  the  author  to  add  biographical 
notes  of  men  still  living,  who  by  special  initiative  have 
contributed  to  the  progress  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  this  country.  In  the  former  editions  these  notes 
were  restricted  to  the  great  men  who  had  passed  to 
their   reward. 

A  special  feature  of  the  present  volume  is  the  more- 
reliable  presentation  of  the  history  of  the  Norwegians 
and  Danes.  The  Rev.  Theo.  Eggen.  editor  of  "Luther- 
aneren,"  the  official  organ  of  the  United  Norwegian 
Church,  kindly  arranged  for  outlines  of  the  history  of 
the  several  Norwegian  bodies  to  be  written  by  rep- 
resentative men  as  follows:  Prof.  E.  Hove  for  the 
Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod,  the  Rev.  J.  A.  Bergh  for 
the  United  Norwegian  Church.  Prof.  G.  M.  Bruce  for 
Hauge's  Synod,  Prof.  Geo.  Sverdrup  for  the  Nor- 
wegian Free  Church.  These  outlines  were  developed 
into  a  whole,  and  then  again  submitted  to  leading 
churchmen  of  the  Norwegians  for  approval.  Those 
of  us  who  are  unable  to  read  Norwegian  can  feel  that 
in  this  chapter  we  have  something  that  may  be  de- 
pended on  for  accuracy.  Prof.  P.  S.  Vig  has  furnished 
the  history  of  the  Danish  Lutheran  Cfjurch. 

The  Rev.  O.  Engel.  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  sent 
us  such  an  excellently  written  review  of  the  history 
of  the  Synod  of  Wisconsin.  Minnesota.  Michigan  and 
Nebraska  that  we  did  not  hesitate  to  incorporate  it 
verbatim  in  the  book.  The  special  history  of  the  Ger- 
man b)wa  Synod  was  furnished  by  Prof.  Geo.  J. 
Fritschel. 


4  FOREWORD. 

For  valuable  suggestions  and  contributions  of 
which  we  have  made  more  or  less  use,  we  are  indebted 
to  the  following  well-known  scholars :  Prof.  O.  Lincke 
and  Dr.  H.  Offermann  (General  Council),  Dr.  A.  G. 
Voigt  (United  Synod  of  the  South),  Prof.  L.  Fuer- 
bringer  (Missouri  Synod),  Dr.  G.  A.  Schodde  (Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio),  Dr.  J.  K.  Nikander  (Suomi  Synod), 
Dr.  B.  E.  Jonsson   (Icelandic  Synod). 

Much  valuable  service  has  been  rendered  by  Prof. 
Geo.  J.  Fritschel,  of  the  Wartburg  Seminary  at  Du- 
buque, la.  While  using  the  "Brief  History"  in  his 
classes  he  made,  at  our  special  request,  various  re- 
visions and  additions,  wdiich  have  been  used  to  great 
advantage  in  the  preparation  of  this  second  edition. 

The  indexes  at  the  end  of  the  ])ook  were  prepared 
by  the  Rev.  G.  Bessler,  of  Spencer,  South  Dakota. 

May  it  please  God  to  use  this  "Brief  History"  as 
an  inspiration  among  Lutherans  in  America,  especially 
to  increase  their  loyalty  to  their  Church !  The  IvUth- 
eran  Church  has  a  mission  in  America. 

At  the  time  of  the  World-War,  1916. 

J.  L.  NEVE. 


CONTENTS. 

PACiK 

Introductory:     Mode  of  Treatment 17 

THE  FIRST  PERIOD 

Origin    of    Individual    Congregations 19 

Chapter  I.     Preliminary  History  of  the  Lutheran  Synods 
of  America 

§1.     The  Dutch  Lutherans 21 

§2.     The   Swedish   Lutherans 26 

§3.     The  German  Lutherans 33 

1.  First     Traces     of     German     Lutherans     in 
America  33 

2.  A  New  Stage  of  German  Immigration 40 

3.  German  Lutheran  Settlements  in  the  State 

of  New  York 41 

4.  Pastor  Berkenmeyer  and  his  Circle 45 

5.  The  Salzburgers 46 

6.  Lutheran  Settlements  in  Pennsylvania 51 

7.  An  Eventful  Step 54 

8.  Count  von   Zinzendorf 55 

9.  Review  ^ 56 


THE  SECOND  PERIOD 

Congregations  organized  into  synods 59 

i 
Chapter  II.     Muhlenberg  and  the  Founding  of  the  First 

Lutheran  Synod 

§4.     Muhlenberg  and   His   Work 61 

1.  Muhlenberg's  Call  and  Arrival 6! 

2.  Muhlenberg  as  a  Missionary 63 

3.  The  "Halleschc  Nachrichtcn" 67 

4.  Additional  Workers 68 

(5) 


O  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

5.  The  Origin  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 68 

6.  The  First  Congregational  Constitution 70 

7.  A  Common  Liturgj- 71 

8.  Doctrinal    Views    of    Muhlenberg    and    His 
Co-workers 72 

9.  Muhlenberg's  death  75 

Chapter     III.     Further    Development     of    Muhlenberg's 
Organization 

§5.     Origin  of  Other  Synods 11 

\.     The  New  York   Ministeriuin 11 

2.  The  North  Carolina  Synod 78 

3.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 78 

4.  The  Synod  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 79 

5.  The  Tennessee  Synod 79 

§6.     Characteristics    of   this    Period 80 

1.  Lack   of   Clergymen 80 

2.  The  Language  Question 82 

3.  Rationalistic  Influences  83 

4.  Confessional  Convictions  Shattered 84 


THE  THIRD  PERIOD 

Synods  Organized  into  Larger  Bodies 87 

Chapter  IV.     The  General  Synod 

§7.     The  Founding  of  the  General  Synod 89 

1.  The  Proposed  Plan 89 

2.  The   Idea   Takes    Shape 89 

3.  Discouragements  91 

4.  Growth 92 

5.  The  First  Seminarj'^  of  the  General  Synod--  93 

6.  The  First  Church  Papers 94 

7.  Relations   to   the   Lutheran   Church  Outside 

of  the  General  Sjmod 97 

8.  Wittenberg  College  98 


CONTKXTS. 


TAGK 

^8.     The  Significance  of  the  General  Synod  for  the 

Lutheran  Church  of  that  Period 99 


1.  Irenic  Tendencies   

2.  Her    Fundamental    Opposition    to    the    Re- 
formed Church 


99 

99 

0.  A  Protest  against  Socinianizing  Tendencies     101 
4     The  Influence  of  the  General  Synod  on  that 

■  Period 101, 

5.     It  could  not  go  beyond  Itself  and  its  Age_—     lO.i 

§9.     Aberrations    1^3 

1.  Introductory  Remarks  ^^^ 

2.  Visiting  with  the  Methodists ^0' 

3      Lutheranism  Modified  by  the  Puritan  Ele- 

■  ment ^^^ 

Annotation:     The  first  Church  Paper   (continued)......  12S 

Biographical   Notes:     S.   S.   Schmucker,   B.   Kurtz,   S. 

Sprecher,    Clias.    V.    Krauth,   J.   A.    Brown 129 

§  10.     Disruption  of  the  General  Synod  and  the  Origin 

of  the  General  Council ^•^-'' 

1.  The  Exodus  of  the  Swedes 136 

2.  The  Exodus  of  the  Southern  Lutherans 137 

3.  The  Disruption  Leading  to  the  Founding  of 

the    General    Council-..-..- •--     '■"'^ 

A.  Preliminary 

a.    The  Melanchthon  Synod,     b.    Admis- 
sion of  the   Franckean   Synod,     c.     The 
founding  of  the  Philadelphia  Seminary—     138 
Biographical   Notes:    C.    R.    Demme,   C.    F.   Schaeffer 

C.    W.    .SchaeflFer    ..._ — - l-"'0 

B.  The  Convention  at  Fort  Wayne,  1866 151 

a.     Introductory,     b.     The    Proceedings 

at  Fort  Wayne,     c.    A  Review,    d.     Fur- 
ther Ruptures 1-"'' 

§11.     The  Character  of   tlie   General   Synod 1"6 

1.  General  Review  of  the  Doctrinal  Develop- 

^^„^  176 

2.  Its  Practice  ^^^ 

^.     Its    Polilv   1^^ 


5  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§12.     Work  of  the  General  Synod 191 

1.  Theological    Seminaries    and   Colleges 191 

2.  Missionary  Enterprises  194 

§13.     Observation   on  Statistics 196 

Biographical  Notes:  J.  H.  Morris,  F.  W.  Conrad, 
L.  A.  Gotwald,  E.  J.  Wolf,  M.  Valentine,  J.  W. 
Richard,  J.  D.  Severinghaus,  S.  A.  Ort,  M.  VV. 
Hamma,   D.   H.   Bauslin,  G.  U.   Wenner,  John   A. 

Singmaster    198 

Chapter  V.     The  United  Synod  of  the  South  205 

§  14.     The  Origin  of  the  Synod 205 

§15.     Characterization     20iS 

§16.     Institutions   and   Work 209 

Biographical  Notes;     The  Henkels,  John  Bachniann, 

A.   G.   Voigt,   W.   H.   Greever 211 

Chapter  VI.     The  General  Council 214 

§17.     Orgranization    214 

1.  The  Convention  at  Reading 214 

2.  Fundamental    Principles    215 

3.  The  Convention  at  Fort  Wayne 217 

§18.     Character  of  the  Council 221 

1.  The  Galesburg  Rule 222 

2.  Secret  Societies 224 

3.  Chiliasm    224 

4.  With  Respect  to  Language 226 

5.  With  Regard  to  Ecclesiastical  Polity 227 

§19.     Present   Status    228 

1.  The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 228 

2.  The  Ministerium  of  New  York 228 

3.  The  Pittsburg  Synod   230 

4.  The  District  Synod  of  Ohio 231 

5.  The  Augustana  Synod  232 

a.     Early  history,    b.    Development,    c.    In- 
stitutions      232 

Biographical  Notes:  Lars  Paul  Esbjorn,  Tuva  Nils- 
son   Hasselquist   235 


CONTENTS.  9 

PACK 

6.  The  Canada  Synod 236 

7.  The  Chicago  Synod  237 

8.  The  English  Synod  of  the  Northwest 237 

9.  The    Manitoba    Synod 238 

10.  The  Pacific  Synod  238 

11.  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Xew  England  239 

12.  The  Nova   Scotia   Synod 239 

13.  The  Synod  of  Central  Canada 239 

14.  The  First  Ev.  Luth.  Synod  of  Texas 239 

§20.     Institutions   and   Missions 240 

1.  Theological  Seminaries  240 

2.  Classical   Institutions    242 

3.  Institutions  of  Mercy 243 

4.  Foreign   Mission  Work  245 

3.     Home   Missions   246 

Biographical  Notes:  W.  J.  Mann,  \V.  A.  Passavant, 
B.  M.  Schmucker,  C.  F.  Krotel,  J.  A.  Seiss,  A. 
Spaeth,  R.  F.  Weidner,  E.  T.  Horn,  G.  H.  Ger- 
berding,  J.   A.   W.   Haas,   H.   E.  Jacobs,  Theodore 

E.     Schmaiik     249 

Chapter  VII.     The   Synodical  Conference 256 

§21.     Introductory 256 

§22.     How  it  Came  into  Existence 257 

A.     The   Missouri   Synod 257 

1.  The  Saxons  257 

2.  Wyneken  and  his  Appeal  for  Help 264 

3.  Loehe    and   His    Institutions 267 

4.  Organization    and   Growth   of   the   Mis- 
souri Synod  269 

5.  Walther's   Eminence   271 

6.  Rupture  with  Loehe  21^ 

7.  Relations  to  Other  Synods 274 

a.  The  Iowa  Synod,  b.  The  Buffalo 
Synod,  c.  The  General  Council,  d. 
The   Absorption    of   the   Illinois    Synod. 

e.  Organization  of  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference,     f.     Withdrawal    of   Ohio    and 

the  Norwegians 274 


10  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§23.     Doctrinal    Controversies    of   Missouri 279 

I.     Missouri    and    Buffalo 279 

1.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church 280 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Ministerial  Office-  282 

3.  Other     Differences 283 

II.     Missouri,  Loehe  and  the  Iowa  Synod 284 

1.  Attitude  toward  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Confessions    284 

2.  Attitude  towards  the  Confessions 288 

3.  Open  Questions  290 

4.  The  Church  and  the   Ministry 292 

5.  Chiliasm    294 

6.  The  Anti-Christ  296 

7.  The  Sunday  Controversy 298 

8.  The  Question  of  Usury 299 

9.  Other  Differences  299 

III.     The    Controversy    Concerning    Predestina- 
tion    300 

1.  Its  Historical  Development 300 

2.  The  Controversy  Itself 305 

§24.     The  Work  of  the  Missouri   Synod_-_ 309 

1.  Educational  Institutions   309 

2.  Missionary  Operations 311 

Biographical  Notes:    F.  W.  Walther,  F.  C.  D.   Wyne- 
ken,    W.    Sihler,    F.    A.    Craemer,    O.    Fuerbringer, 

A.   L.   Graebner,   ('<.   C.    Stoeckhardt,    F.    Pieper 313 

B.     The   other  Parts  of  the  Synodical   Confer- 
ence    318 

§25.     The   General    Synod   of   Wisconsin,   Minnesota, 

Michigan  and  other  States 318 

I.     The   Wisconsin  Synod 319 

1.  Its  Origin  and  Confessional  Character.-  319 

2.  Relations  with  German}-^ 321 

a.  Langenberg  and  the  Berlin  Miss. 
Societ}'.  b.  Trip  of  Pastor  Bading.  c. 
The  Pro-Seminary,     d.     Wisconsin  and 

the  Prussian  Union  321 


CONTENTS.  II 

PAGE 

3.  Relation  with  other  Synods 324 

a.  The  Pennsylvania  Synod,  b.  Iowa 
Synod,  c.  Minnesota  Synod,  d.  The 
Missouri  Synod  324 

4.  Participation  in  the  Forming  of  Larger 

Bodies 326 

a.  General  Council,  b.  Synodical  Con- 
ference      326 

5.  Educational  Institutions  328 

6.  Concerning  Missions   and  General   Sta- 
tistics        330 

Biographical    Notes:      J.    F.    Bading,    A.    Iloenecke 33 1 

II.     The  Minnesota  Synod 332 

1.  Origin  and  Organization 332 

2.  Confessional  Position  334 

3.  Relation  with  the  General  Council 334 

4.  State  Synods 336 

5.  Concerning  Predestination 336 

6.  Dr.  Martin  Luther  College 337 

III.  The   Michigan   Synod 337 

1.  Preliminary  History 337 

2.  Loehe's  Missionaries 338 

3.  Organization  and  Confessional  Position  339 

4.  Union  with  the  General  Council 339 

5.  Union  with  the  General  Synod  and  the 
Synodical  Conference 340 

6.  Division  and  Founding  of  the  Michigan 
District 341 

7.  Union  with  the  Augsburg  Synod     341 

8.  Adjustment  of  Differences  and  Present 
Status  341 

IV.  The  District  Synod  of  Nebraska 342 

§26.     The  Slovak  Synod 342 

§27.     Practices  of  the  Synodical  Conference 343 

1.  Church  Polity.  2.  Doctrinal  Discipline. 
3.  Unionism.  4.  Secret  Societies.  5. 
Worldly  Amusements.  6.  Parochial 
Schools 343 


12  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Chapter  VIII.     Independent  Synods 347 

§28.     The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 347 

1.  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Ohio  Synod.-  347 

2.  Synodical  Controversies 352 

a.  Against  Unionism,  b.  Against  Secret 

Societies,     c.     Against  Predestination..  352 

3.  Characteristic     features     of     the     Ohio 

Synod   356 

a.    Language,    b.    Theological  Position. 

c.     Its  Practice. 

4.  Institutions  and  Missionary  Activities..  357 
Biographical  Notes:    W.  F.  Lehmann,  Matthias  Loy, 

F.     W.     Stellhorn,     H.     A.     Allwardt,     C.     H.     L. 

Schuette,    Geo.    H.    Schodde 359 

§29.     The  Iowa  Synod 362 

1.  The  Origin  of  the  Iowa  Synod 362 

2.  Growth  of  the  Synod 364 

3.  Characteristic    Features    of    the     Iowa 
Synod  374 

a.     Constitution,     b.     Liturgical  Forms. 

c.    Visitation,     d.     Secret  Societies 374 

4.  Educational  Institutions 375 

5.  Missionary  Activities  'iT^ 

Biographical    Notes:     The    Fritschels,    G.    M.    Gross- 

mann,  Joh.  Deindoerfer,  F.  Richter,  J.  M.  Reu 378 

§30.     The  Buffalo  Synod 381 

Chapter  IX.     The  Norwegians  and  the  Danes 386 

§31.     The  Norwegians 386 

1.     Conditions  of  the  Church  in  Norway 386 

II.     Organization  of  Norwegian  Synods 388 

III.     History  of  Individual  Norwegian  Synods.—  391 

1.  Hauges   Synod   391 

2.  The  Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod 395 

3.  The  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church 

in  America 398 

4.  The  Norwegian  Lutheran  Free  Church.  401 

5.  The  Church  of  the  Lutheran  Brethren..  403 


CONTENTS.  13 

PAGE 

IV.     Proepective  Union  of  the  Norwegians 403 

Biographical  Notes:  Elling  Kielsen,  Clans  Lauritz 
Claussen,  Peder  Andreas  Rasmussen,  Herman 
Amber  Preuss,  Ulrik  Wilhelm  Loren  Cijcrmund 
Hoyme,  Georg  Sverdrup,  Peter  Lauritz  Larson, 
F.   A.    Schmidt,   Hans   Gerhard   Stub - 407 

§32.     Danish  Lutherans  in  America 413 

1.  Introductory,      Missionary      Operations 
and   First    Organizations 413 

2.  The  Danish  Ev.  Luth.  Church  in  North 
America  418 

3.  The  Danish  Ev.  Luth.  Church  Associa- 
tion of  America 418 

4.  The  United  Danish  Ev.  Luth.  Church  in 
America  (1896)  419 

5.  The  Danish  Ev.  Luth.  Church  in  America     419 

Chapter  X. 

§33.     Small  Synods  of  Different  Languages 421 

1.  The  Icelandic  Lutheran  Synod 421 

2.  The  Suomi   (Finnish)  Synod 422 

Chapter  XL 

§34.     Constitutional  Forms  of  the  Lutheran  Church 

in  America 423 


Chapter  XIL     General   Review 431 

§35.     A  Discussion  of  the  Development  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church  in  America 431 

§36.     Review     of     the     Extension     of     the     Lutheran 

Church   in  America 437 

§37.     Appendices    440 

I.    The  Davenport  Theses 440 

II.     The     Thirteen     Propositions     of     Missouri 

Concerning  Election  44.t 

III.  The  Toledo  Theses 448 

IV.  Statements  Relative  to  the  General  Synod's 
Doctrinal  Basis  (Richmond  Resolutions) 451 


INTRODUCTORY. 


Mode  of  Treatment. 

REVIEWING  the  250  years  of  Lutheran  history 
in  America,  the  historian  faces  the  question : 
How  U  the  material  to  be  treated?  Shall  he 
simply  enumerate  the  leading  events,  and  by  co- 
ordinating- them  sacritice  the  real  historical  character 
of  the  work?  This  was  too  much  the  case  in  the 
first  attempt  that  was  made  in  our  country,  in  Dr. 
E.  J.  Wolf's  "Lutherans  in  America."  Or  shall  we 
(like  Jacobs  and  Fritschel)  trace  the  development 
chiefly  from  the  viewpoint  of  confessional  progress? 
This  plan  would  certainly  be  interesting;  but  it  is 
easily  confusing  for  the  beginner,  and  this  book  is 
to  be  a  handbook  of  the  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  for  students  who  first  want  to 
find  their  bearings  before  they  investigate  more  ex- 
tensively. So  we  purpose  to  present  the  history  here 
simply  from  the  viewpoint  of  organization  and 
growth.  Following  this  plan,  we  shall  divide  the 
material  into  three  parts : 

1)  Origin  of  individual  congregations; 

2)  Congregations  organized  into  synods; 

3)  Synods  organized  into  large  bodies. 

Of  these  three  parts,  the  last  is  not  only  the  most 
extensive,  but  also  the  most  complicated,  because  the 
2  (17) 


1 8  INTRODUCTORY. 

history  of  the  three  leading  Lutheran  bodies  runs 
parallel  to  the  history  of  the  smaller  synods.  We 
have  tried  to  overcome  this  difficulty  by  some  in- 
troductor}^  remarks  viewing  the  subject  as  a  v^hole 
and  by  some  closing  statements  pointing  to  common 
ground  held  by  these  apparently  disjointed  elements. 


THE  FIRST  PERIOD. 


ORIGIN  OF  INDIVIDUAL  CONGREGATIONS. 

The  beginning  of  the  Lutheran  Church  can  be 
traced  in  the  organization  of  independent  Dutch  and 
Swedish  congregations.  The  Germans  who  first  im- 
migrated to  New  York  founded  churches  along  the 
Hudson  and  in  the  Schoharie  Valley.  Afterwards  we 
iicar  of  German  Lutheran  organizations  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  all  along  the  coast  as  far  south  as  Ebenezer 
in  Georgia.  The  Dutch  congregations  were  absorbed 
by  the  German  and  English  churches,  while  the 
Swedish  Lutherans  eventually  united  with  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  It  is  characteristic  of  this  epoch  that 
(excepting  the  Swedes)  we  can  find  no  trace  of 
synodical  connection  whatever  among  these  scattered 
congregations. 

(19) 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY   HISTORY  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 
SYNODS  OF  AMERICA. 


§  1.     The  Dutch  Lutherans. 

After  1583  Lutheranism  in  Holland  was  pushed 
into  the  background  by  Calvinism.  New  Netherland 
owes  its  origin  to  an  expedition  of  Henry  Hudson 
(1619),  an  Englishman,  who,  in  the  service  of  Hol- 
land, tried  to  discover  the  North-west  passage.  En- 
couraged by  his  reports,  some  Amsterdam  speculators 
sent  fur-trading  ships  to  the  Hudson  and  organized 
the  West  India  Company.  Thus  originated  the  first 
permanent  settlement  (1623)  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Albany  (then  called  Ft.  Orange),  consisting  of 
some  forty  families.  In  1625  followed  the  founding 
of  New  Amsterdam  by  a  settlement  of  two  hundred 
persons.  The  first  two  governors.  May  and  Verhulst, 
soon  lost  courage  and  returned  home.  But  Peter 
Minewit  (Minuit),  a  German,  looked  into  the  future. 
On  May  4,  1626,  he  purchased  Manhattan  Island  from 
the  Indians  for  a  trade  consideration  of  some  $24.00, 
and  then  proceeded  to  erect  for  the  protection  of 
settlers  the  stone  fort  of  Amsterdam.  Fur-trading 
soon  assumed  large  proportions.  To  induce  immi- 
grants to  come  to  this  colony,  a  system  of  patronage 
was  worked  out  (1629)  ;  whoever  secured  fifty  settlers 
was  entitled  to  a  feudal  domain  16  miles  long  and 
8  miles  deep  (later  only  one-half  of  this  area)  front- 

(21) 


22  THE   DUTCH    LUTHERANS.  §    I 

ing  a  navigable  river.  This  measure  proved  very 
profitable  to  wealthy  speculators,  but  it  caused  dis- 
satisfaction in  the  colony.  The  governor,  who  was 
merely  acting  in  obedience  to  instructions,  was  held 
responsible  for  this  political  error,  and  was  recalled 
from  his  congenial  sphere  of  activity.  ^  But  he  had 
laid  his  foundation  for  a  growing  Commonwealth. 
However,  we  must  not  think  of  Manhattan  as  a  large 
city ;   it  contained  only  30  houses  and  270  people. 

Minewit  was  succeeded  by  Wm.  Kieft  and  after- 
wards (1644-64)  by  Peter  Stuyvesant,  an  energetic 
veteran,  who  too  largely  figures  in  the  history  of 
Lutheranism  in  New  Netherland.  There  may  have 
been  some  Lutherans  among  the  earliest  settlers. 
But  they  are  first  mentioned  by  Joques,  the  Jesuit 
father,  who  came  to  New  Amsterdam  as  a  fugitive 
in  1643.  -  However,  there  was  no  trace  of  organiza- 
tion. As  far  as  organizations  were  concerned,  the 
Swedes,  who  practically  immigrated  as  congrega- 
tions, antedated  the  Dutch.  It  was  long  after  the  Re- 
formed Church,  assisted  by  the  government  and  by 
contributions  from  their  native  land,  had  erected  build- 
ings and  secured  clergymen,  before  the  Lutherans 
thought  they  were  strong  enough  to  erect  their  own 
place  of  worship  and  to  call  a  minister.  They,  there- 
fore, sent  a  petition  to  the  governor  and  also  to 
the  West  India  Company  in  Amsterdam,  asking  per- 


^  He  then  entered  the  service  of  Sweden,  and  until  his  death 
(1641)  was  the  first  governor  of  New  Sweden.  Here  he  made  use 
of  his  experience  (acquired  in  New  Netherland)  of  dealing  with  the 
Indians,  and  secured  a  large  percentage  of  the  fur  trade  for  the 
Swedes,  much  to  the   irritation  of  the  avaricious  Dutch. 

*  Isaac  Joques,  or  Jogues,  was  a  French  missionary  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Quebec.  Two  years  after  his  visit  to  New  Amsterdam  he 
Avas   killed   by   the   Indians. 


§    I  THE    DUTCH    LUTHERANS.  2}^ 

mission  to  call  a  Lutheran  pastor.  This  petition  was 
renewed  in  1653.  But  Stuyvesant,  being  a  strong 
Calvinist  and  being  pledged  by  his  oath  of  office  to 
tolerate  no  religion  but  the  Reformed,  also  influenced 
by  two  Reformed  ministers  (Megapolensis  and  Dri- 
sius),  refused  to  grant  the  request,  and  insisted  that 
only  those  of  Calvin's  creed  should  be  tolerated  in 
the  new  colonies.  Similar  protests  were  stirred  up 
by  Megapolensis  and  Drisius  among  the  Reformed 
authorities  in  Holland,  who  in  turn  prevailed  upon 
the  directors  of  the  company  to  reject  this  applica- 
tion. Thus  the  petition  of  the  Lutherans  was  rejected. 
The  Lutherans  had  to  take  their  children  to  the 
Reformed  ministers  to  be  baptized.  This,  to  be  sure, 
had  been  a  custom  in  Holland  wherever  a  Lutheran 
clergyman  could  not  be  secured.  But  now  Stuyvesant 
and  his  clerical  advisers  insisted  that  Lutheran  parents 
and  god-parents  must  promise  to  train  their  children 
in  the  Christian  faith  as  interpreted  by  the  Dort  Con- 
fession. It  was  this  innovation  especially  that  vio- 
lated the  conscience  of  the  Lutherans.  But  their 
desire  to  become  independent  as  a  church  was  only 
met  with  harsh  measures  and  a  general  oppression. 
Stuyvesant  even  interfered  with  private  services. 
Whoever  dared  to  read  a  sermon  at  such  a  private 
service  was  fined  one  hundred  pounds  of  Flemish  gold, 
and  whoever  listened  to  it,  twenty-five  pounds.  In 
certain  instances  the  offender  was  cast  into  prison. 
Such  tyranny  caused  the  Lutherans  to  appeal  to  the 
authorities  in  Amsterdam,  but  while  Stuyvesant  was 
reproved  for  his  severe  methods,  he  did  not  consider 
the  situation  serious  enough  to  discontinue  his  per- 
secutions altogether. 


24  THE   DUTCH    LUTHERANS.  §    I 

On  June  6,  1657,  the  Rev.  John  Ernest  Gutwasser 

arrived,  being  an  emissary  of  the  Lutheran  Consistory 
of  Amsterdam.  He  was  gratefully  received  by  the 
Dutch  Lutherans  among  whom  he  was  to  do  his 
work.  But  the  Reformed  element  hastened  to  inter- 
fere. Immediately  after  his  arrival  he  was  summoned 
to  court,  and  was  instructed  under  penalty  not  to 
perform  any  ministerial  acts.  The  government  of 
Holland,  while  advising  that  religious  toleration  was 
desirable  from  a  political  point  of  view,  did  not 
wish  to  encourage  Lutheranism,  and,  after  all,  ap- 
proved of  Stuyvesant's  methods.  Gutwasser  was 
ordered  to  return  home  on  the  first  vessel  leaving 
the  colonies.  But  this  order  had  to  be  given  re- 
peatedly before  it  was  finally  (after  a  quiet  activity 
for  two  years)  obeyed.  ^  Thus  the  unwelcome  Lu- 
theran preacher  was  gotten  out  of  the  way.  Not 
until  the  year  1663  was  religious  tolerance  effected. 
A  Quaker,  punished  by  Stuyvesant,  brought  this  about 
by  demonstrating  to  the  governor  that  any  other 
policy  would  seriously  interfere  with  financial  de- 
velopments. 

As  to  national  composition  in  this  congregation, 
we  offer  the  following  quotation:  "The  first  Dutch 
congregation  in  the  new  world  was  truly  cosmo- 
politan :  it  consisted  of  a  number  of  Dutch  families, 
but    the    majority    of    the    members    were    Danish, 


'  An  entry  in  the  records  of  Albany,  dated  May  20,  1658,  reads  as 
follows:  "Lutheran  pastor  and  some  bad  women  were  deported  to 
Holland."  Ecclesiastical  Records  of  New  York,  I,  423.  Colonial  Record 
of  N.  v.,  .XIV,  417.  But  according  to  a  letter  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
Kecords  (I,  p.  433)  we  know  that  Gutwasser  managed  to  get  around 
ins  deportation.  In  the  spring  of  the  following  year  (1659)  he  was 
still  there.  Afterwards,  however,  he  was  arrested  and  sent  home  on 
the   "Bruynvisch"    (the   Brown    Fish)    sailing   for  Amsterdam. 


5    I  THE   DUTCH    LUTHERANS.  2$ 

Swedish,  Norwegian  and  German  people.  The  lead- 
ng  man  of  this  congregation  was  a  German,  Paulus 
Schrick,  of  Nuremberg  (Ecclesiastical  Records  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  1901,  p.  425) :  and  the  man  who 
kvas  suspected  by  the  Reformed  preachers  of  Amster- 
dam as  sheltering  during  the  whole  winter  the  first 
Dutch  Lutheran  minister  of  the  new  world,  John  Gut- 
kvasser,  was  a  Norwegian,  Laurence  Noorman  (1  c. 
^30)."  Evjen,  in  Hauck  R.  E.,  XXIV,  539. 

In  1664  New  Amsterdam,  having  a  population  of 
ifteen  hundred  people,  fell  into  the  hands  of  Engfland 
md  was  named  New  York  in  honor  of  its  new  pro- 
prietor, the  Duke  of  York  (later  James  II  of  Eng- 
and).  Colonel  Nicolls,  the  conqueror,  became  gov- 
ernor. This  event  secured  Lutheran  freedom,  inas- 
nuch  as,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  new  gov- 
ernment, no  person  was  to  be  molested,  punished  or 
mprisoned  on  account  of  religious  preferences.  The 
^utherans  appealed  to  the  governor  for  the  right  of 
;alling  a  pastor.  This  was  cheerfully  granted,  but 
)nly  after  an  interim  of  several  years  did  they  se- 
cure one  in  the  person  of  Magister  Jacob  Fabricius. 
rheir  choice  was  unfortunate.  The  new  minister 
)roved  so  despotic  and  hot-headed  that  he  was  com- 
)elled  to  give  up  his  work  first  in  Albany  and  after- 
vards  in  New  York,  where  the  first  church  was  in 
:onstruction.  *  (Later  he  took  up  work  among  the 
swedes). 

He  was  succeeded  by  Bemhard  Arensius  (1671- 
691),  a  gentle  personality  with  a  pleasing  presence, 
vho  worked  faithfully  during  a  period  of  unrest  (war 
)ctween  Holland  and  England,  rebellions  against  un^ 

♦  The  church  was  erected  on  the  present   site  of  Battery  ParV. 


26  THE   DUTCH    LUTHERANS.  §    I 

popular  governors,  and  against  the  Catholic  king).' 
After  his  death  the  two  congregations  of  Albany  and 
New  York  had  to  prove  their  stability  by  being  with- 
out a  pastor  for  ten  years.  The  New  York  congre- 
gation in  1695  consisted  of  about  thirty  famihes ; 
the  Albany  congregation  of  about  twelve,  while  the 
Reformed  church  had  twenty-nine  buildings  and 
seventeen  hundred  and  fifty-four  members.  Finally 
Magister  Rudman,  who  had  been  in  the  service  of  the 
Swedes,  accepted  a  call  (1702),  and  although  his 
pastorate  was  short,  he  proved  to  be  a  man  of  con- 
structive and  organizing  talents.  In  1703  he  en- 
trusted the  parish,  now  largely  German,  to  Justus 
Falckner.  At  this  junction  the  history  of  the  Dutch 
Lutherans  merges  into  the  beginning  of  German  Lu- 
theranism.  We,  therefore,  interrupt  our  narrative 
at  this  place. 

§  2.    The  Swedish  Lutherans. 

Correctly  estimating  the  commercial  possibilities 
of  America  and  interested  in  the  project  of  Usselink, 
a  Dutchman,  Gustavus  Adolphus  conceived  the  plan 
of  establishing  colonies  on  this  continent.  All  classes 
of  the  Swedish  people  were  enthusiastic.  On  June 
14,  1626,  a  charter  for  the  "South  Company"  was 
signed  at  Stockholm,  one  feature  of  which  was  the 
propagation  of  the  true  Gospel.  However,  the  plan 
did  not  mature  until  after  the  death  of  the  great  king. 
In  the  year  1638,  under  the  command  .  of  Peter 
Minuit,  former  Director  General  of  New  Amsterdam, 


^  About  his  work,  Dr.  Nicum  has  discovered  valuable  material  in 
the  archives  of  Holland.  When  these  archives  are  published,  we 
jnay   get   some   new   light   on   this  period,  hitherto  obscured. 


§    2  THE    SWEDISH    LUTHERANS.  2^ 

two  Swedish  vessels,  the  "Grypen"  and  the  "Kahnar 
Nykel,"  dropped  anchor,  after  a  six  months'  journey, 
at  Lewes  in  the  State  of  Delaware.  Among  the 
passengers  of  the  second  expedition  (1639)  was 
Reorus  Torkillus,  the  first  Lutheran  minister  who  set 
foot  upon  American  soil.  ^  These  immigrants,  many 
of  whom  were  Germans,  purchased  land  from  the 
Indians  which  was  ceded  to  the  Swedish  crown  "for 
all  time."  On  a  certain  site  of  the  present  Wil- 
mington, Del.,  they  erected  Fort  Christina,  where 
they  also  conducted  their  services.  ^  The  first 
churches  they  built  with  the  view  of  using  them  as 
possible  fortifications  against  the  Indians.  However, 
this  precaution  proved  unnecessary,  since,  by  treat- 
ing the  Indians  kindly,  they  gave  no  occasion  for 
any  hostilities.  The  Rev.  John  Campanius,  who  ar- 
rived with  a  third  expedition  in  1643,  even  conducted 
a  mission  among  the  Indians  and  translated  Luther's 
Catechism  into  their  native  tongue.  He  also  conse- 
crated the  first  Lutheran  church  of  the  new  world 
(1646),  which  was  built  on  the  island  of  Tinicum  not 

'  We  are  speaking  of  pastors  who  came  for  purposes  of  permanent 
activity;  otherwise  we  should  have  to  mention  the  Rev.  Rasmus 
Jensen,  who  arrived  1619  in  the  Hudson  Bay  as  chaplain  of  a  Danish 
expedition,  which  under  command  of  Captain  Munk  took  charge  of 
the  land  for  the  Danish  crown  (Schmauk,  "Lutheran  Church  in  Penn- 
sylvania,"   I,    17). 

■'The  Rev.  John  Campanius,  whom  we  shall  shortly  mention,  in- 
forms us  that  tierman  immigrants,  consisting  of  fifty  colonists,  arrived 
on  the  ship  "Dcr  Vogel  Greif"  to  take  part  in  the  founding  of  the 
Delaware  colony.  Gustavus  Adolphus,  even  a  few  days  before  his 
death  at  Luetzen,  characterized  his  American  project  as  the  "pearl 
of  his  kingdom"  and  begged  the  Protestant  rulers  to  permit  their 
subjects  to  take  part  in  it.  Governor  Printz,  who  was  later  com- 
missioned for  that  purpose,  was  a  German  nobleman  himself,  a  native 
of  Holstein,  who  induced  some  fifty-four  German  families,  mostly 
Pomeranians,  to  follow  him  across  the  sea.  (See  L.  P.  Henning- 
hausen,  "The   first  Immigrants  to  North  America,"  pp.  160-1&2). 


28  THE   SWEDISH    LUTHERANS.  §    2 

far  from  the  present  site  of  Philadelphia.  The  popu- 
lation comprised  some  five  hundred  and  fifty  people. 

However,  the  neighboring  Dutch  colony  resented 
the  Swedish  enterprise,  which  offered  serious  compe- 
tition to  their  trade  with  the  Indians.  Seventeen 
years  afterwards  hostilities  began  because  of  dif- 
ference with  respect  to  the  boundary  line.  The 
Swedish  army  —  consisting  of  twenty  men  —  went  to 
war,  and  conquered  without  bloodshed  the  Dutch 
fort.  ^  But  the  wooden-legged  Stuyvesant  revenged 
his  countrymen  by  mobilizing  seven  hundred  men  who 
embarked  on  five  vessels  and  quickly  terminated 
Swedish  rule  on  American  soil.  Thus  in  1655  this 
flourishing  colony  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Dutch 
who  held  it  for  nine  years.  After  the  surrender  of 
Tinicum  the  Swedes  were  permitted  to  retain  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  but  the  immigration  from 
Sweden  ceased  and  the  Lutheran  ministers,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Rev.  Lars  Lock,  returned  to  their 
native  land.  Only  with  the  greatest  difficulty  could 
this  sole  remaining  pastor  carry  on  his  work  among 
the  scattered  settlements.  He  went  up  and  down 
the  river  in  an  improvised  canoe,  risking  his  life  in 
woods  that  swarmed  with  hostile  Indian  tribes.  The 
Rev.  Jacob  Fabricius  came  to  his  assistance  in  1677, 
but  when  this  worthy  clergyman  grew  totally  blind, 
after  five  years  of  useful  work,  the  ministerial  ser- 
vices rendered  to  the  Swedes  became  altogether  in- 
sufficient. 

Lars  Lock  died  in  1688,  Fabricius  in  1696,  and 
the  Swedish  Lutherans   found  themselves  in  a  des- 

•  See  the  humorous  description  of  this  event  in  Washington 
Irving,   "Knickerbocker's   History    of   New    York." 


^    2  THE    SWF.DISII    LUTHERAMS.  20 

perate  situation.  Their  applications  for  preachers 
addressed  to  the  Consistories  of  Amsterdam  and  of 
their  home  country  (of  which  they  knew  only  by 
hearsay)  were  of  no  avail.  They  had  nothing  with 
which  to  nourish  their  spiritual  life,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  Bibles  and  books  of  worship.  These 
volumes  were  so  constantly  used  that  they  threatened 
to  fall  to  pieces.  But  in  God's  wise  providence  one 
of  their  appeals  fell  into  the  hands  of  Charles  XI., 
king  of  Sweden.  It  contained  the  request  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty-eight  families,  representing  nine 
hundred  and  forty-two  souls,  for  a  minister,  twelve 
Bibles,  three  sermon  books,  forty-two  books  of  wor- 
ship, one  hundred  hymnals  and  two  hundred  cate- 
chisms. This  letter  greatly  impressed  the  king.  In 
many  copies  he  circulated  it  among  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  and  the  aristocracy  of  the  country,  and 
finally  (1696)  equipped  a  sailing  vessel  on  which  the 
books,  as  well  as  Pastors  Rudman,  Bjoerk  and  Auren 
started  on  the  journey  to  their  anxiously  waiting 
countrymen  in  Delaware  with  the  books  which  were 
desired.  '•*  Rudman  became  minister  of  a  congregation 
at  Wicaco  (the  present  Philadelphia),  where  he  built 
the  old  Gloria  Dei  Church  (36x66,  20  ft.  high,  at  a 
cost  of  eight  hundred  pounds).  The  German  her- 
mits of  the  Kissahikon  valley  took  part  in  the  dedica- 
tion, rendering  a  musical  program  of  choral  and  in- 
strumental selections.  Bjoerk  took  charge  of  the 
congregation    at    Wilmington    where    he    built    Holy 

•Thirty  Bibles,  six  books  of  sermons,  one  luimlred  books  of 
worship,  one  hundred  hymnals,  two  hooks  on  Ministerial  Acts,  one 
hundred  I.arper  and  Smaller  Catechisms,  four  hundred  primers,  five 
hundred  Indian  Catechisms  by  Campanius  arrived  as  presents  from 
the   king. 


30  THE    SWEDISH    LUTHERANS.  §    2 

Trinity  Church  (to-day  known  as  the  Old  Swede 
Church).  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  these  two  his- 
toric churches,  made  sacred  to  us  by  the  pure  teach- 
ing of  those  old,  true,  Swedish  Lutheran  preachers, 
in  which  several  of  these  Lutheran  pioneers  are  buried, 
should  now  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Episcopalians. 

Henceforth  we  notice  a  continued  influx  of 
Swedish  Lutheran  ministers,  who  soon  made  their 
influence  felt,  not  only  because  of  their  thorough 
education,  but  also  because  of  the  literary  attainments 
on  the  part  of  quite  a  few.  Among  the  most  in- 
fluential we  mention  John  Dylander,  the  Provost 
Acrelius  (author  of  a  valuable  history  of  "Swedes 
in  America"),  and  Provost  Dr.  Wrangel,  a  most  emi- 
nent divine,  who  also  sustained  close  relationship  with 
Muhlenberg  and  the  Germans.  But  the  fact  that 
these  clergymen  remained  under  the  supervision  and 
control  of  the  Swedish  government,  which  would 
often  recall  them  at  the  time  when  they  were  most 
needed,  proved  fatal  to  the  development  of  the  strug- 
gling congregations.  ^^  Some  of  the  Swedish  pastors 
had  acquired  the  English  language  (the  use  of  which 
was  demanded  more  and  more  by  the  young  people), 
and  their  place  could  not  easily  be  filled.  The  re- 
call of  Dr.  Wrangel,  who  had  done  a  great  work  and 
whose  presence  could  not  be  spared,  caused  bitter 
resentment  among  the  congregations.  They  de- 
manded more  consideration  from  the  authorities 
abroad  and  called  for  English-speaking  ministers. 
This  resulted  in  the  refusal  of  the  Swedish  govern- 


10  We  should  note,  however,  that  the  Swedish  and  Dutch  Lu- 
theran churches  looked  after  their  immigrant  countrymen,  while  the 
German  Lutheran  State  churches  left  this  care  in  charge  of  charitable 
societies. 


§    2 


THE    SWEDISH    LUTHER^VNS. 


31 


meat  to  send  any  more  clergymen  and  the  subsequent 
affiliation  of  these  Lutheran  congregations  with  the 
Episcopal  church."''  Here  then  we  have  the  explana- 
ti<->n  why  the  old  historic  church  buildings  mentioned 
above  are  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 


Having  briefly  reviewed  the  history  of  the  Swedish 
Lutherans  from  the  time  of  their  settlement  in  Del- 
aware (1638)  to  the  end  of  the  18th  century,  when 
they  entered  the  Episcopal  denomination,  we  must  add 
a  few  remarks  relative  to  certain  features  in  their 
development  which  we  previously  omitted  for  reasons 
of  perspicuity. 

Among  the  ministers  supplying  these  congrega- 
tions there  was  always  a  Pastor  Superior  (Provost) 
who  presided,  visited  the  churches  and  sent  reports 
to  the  church  authorities  in  Sweden.  The  fact  that 
the  Swedish  ministers  recognized  the  spiritual  su- 
premacy of  their  king  and  had  to  submit  the  afTairs 
of  their  parishes  to  his  judgment,  produced  not  only 
extraordinary,  but  detrimental  eflfects.  1)  The  con- 
gregation did  not  sufficiently  partake  in  the  responsi- 
bilities of  church  work.  The  pastors  bore  the  whole 
burden,  not  only  in  a  spiritual  sense,  but  also  in  the 
administration  of  the  church  property.  Since  the 
congregations  were  seldom  consulted,  they  became 
lax  in  the  financial  support  of  the  pastor.  2)  This 
again  resulted  in  short  pastorates.  Theological  can- 
didates considered  their  parishes  as  temporary  step- 
ping-stones to  something  better  at  home,  while  others 
who  might  have  liked  to  remain  and  who  could  have 
secured  the  consent  of  the  Swedish  king  for  a  per- 
manent stay,  felt  that  the  meager  salary  and  their 


"•  See   also   «   4,  9. 


;^2  THE    SWEDISH    LUTHERANS.  §    2 

increasing  families  did  not  justify  them  in  following 
their  inclinations.  Certain  it  is  that  ministers  who 
looked  upon  the  charge  of  these  churches  as  a  tem- 
porary engagement  lacked  zeal  and  inspiration  to 
do  their  work  well.  3)  Perhaps  this  is  the  reason 
why  even  the  ablest  of  the  Swedish  pastors  never 
suggested  an  independent  development  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America.  Such  a  possibility  seemed 
too  remote  even  to  be  thought  of. 

The  question  of  the  language  also  presented  a 
difficult  problem.  Most  Swedish  pastors  have  always 
officiated  in  two  languages,  the  English  and  the 
Swedish.  The  Provost  Dylander  held  three  services 
every  Sunday,  preaching  in  German  at  the  early  morn- 
ing service,  in  Swedish  at  the  main  service  and  in 
English  in  the  afternoon.  Provost  Acrelius,  whose 
book  on  "The  History  of  New  Sweden"  gives  us  a 
clear  picture  of  the  situation,  says  (page  361)  :  "There 
are  times  when  the  church  council  decides  that  there 
shall  be  no  more  English  services  in  the  future,  and 
that  no  more  funerals  shall  be  conducted  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.  This  results  in  a  general  denuncia- 
tion of  the  church  officers,  who  are  accused  of  con- 
sidering all  English  people  as  heathen.  They  are 
told  that  it  is  a  serious  disregard  of  duty  to  look 
after  one  part  of  the  vineyard  and  to  neglect  the 
other.  Thus  the  decision  is  reversed.  One  person 
wants  to  have  the  child  baptized  in  English,  another 
in  Swedish,  and  both  to  have  it  done  in  the  same 
church  and  at  the  same  time.  Some  refuse  to  serve 
as  god-parents  if  the  children  are  not  baptized  in 
Swedish,  while  other  god-parents  do  not  even  under- 
stand  this    language.     One   woman   wishes    to   be 


§    2  THE    SWEDISH    LUTHERANS.  33 

churched  ^^^  in  Swedish,  another  in  Knghsli,  and  both 
want  the  service  at  the  same  time.  During  the 
funerals  we  have  an  luighsh-spcaking  congregation 
of  a  mixed  character,  yet  our  people  are  not  sure 
whether  they  want  English  or  Swedish  services,  even 
while  the  pastor  is  entering  the  building."  (Relative 
to  the  language  problem  in  the  Lutheran  church  of 
America  see  §  6,  2). 

The  close  relationship  between  the  Swedes  and 
other  nationalities,  and  especially  their  way  of  co- 
operating with  the  Dutch  and  Germans,  offer  a  most 
attractive  picture.  During  their  time  of  need  the 
Swedes  had  been  served  by  Fabricius,  the  German 
minister  sent  to  the  Dutch.  Justus  Falckner,  a  Ger- 
man, was  ordained  for  work  among  the  Dutch  by 
v^wedish  pastors  (Rudman,  Bjoerk  and  Sandel).  Rud- 
mnn.  the  Swede,  had  served  this  Dutch  congregation 
before  Falckner.  We  have  already  mentioned  the 
friendly  relationship  between  Wrangel  and  the  patri- 
arch Muhlenberg.  The  SAvedish  provost  Sandin  took 
]inrt  in  the  r)rganization  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
(^  4,  5).  From  this  we  gather  that  in  those  days 
of  small  beginnings  one  depended  upon  the  other, 
and  each  wa=:  willing  to  contribute  his  services  to 
the  general  welfare. 


5  3.    The  German  Lutherans. 
L     First  Traces  of  German  Lutherans  in  America. 

Not  until  tlie  beginning  of  the  18th  century  were 
there    sufficient   Germans   in   this   country  to  justify 


""The    chMrcliinjr   of    women    w.is    a    service    to    wJiich    the    Swedes 
adhered   with   great    tenacity. 


34  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3.^ 

the  idea  of  org-anization.  The  chief  reason  for  this 
late  immigration  is  to  be  sought  in  the  deplorable 
condition  in  Avhich  Germany  found  herself  follow- 
ing the  Thirty  Years'  War.  Without  a  united  gov- 
ernment and  utterl}'-  devastated,  this  country  could 
entertain  no  thoughts  of  colonization.  Individuals 
and  small  expeditions  which  eventually  found  their 
way  to  America  were  not  Lutherans  but  Quakers, 
Mennonites,  mystics  of  every  description,  who  sought 
refuge  from  the  persecutions  of  the  German  State 
Church  in  the  colonies  of  William  Penn. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  among  these  ele- 
ments which  in  Germany  had  leaned  toward  sec- 
tarianism, Lutheran  tendencies  were  not  altogether 
extinguished.  Having  attained  absolute  freedom  of 
worship,  they  helped  in  the  founding  of  Lutheran 
churches.  Dr.  Julius  Sachse  was  the  first  to  de- 
scribe in  his  volume  on  "German  Pietists"  and  other 
historical  writings  the  religious  life  of  these  early 
settlers,  and  Dr.  Th.  E.  Schmauk,  on  the  basis  of  this 
information,  is  publishing  a  very  excellent  history 
on  "The  Lutheran  Church  in  America,"  of  which  the 
first  volume  has  appeared  (585  pages).  We  shall 
use  this  volume  as  an  authority  at  a  number  of 
places  in  the  succeeding  paragraphs. 

On  a  visit  to  Germany  William  Penn  had  caused 
the  organization  of  the  Frankfort  Land  Company. 
To  this  corporation  he  sold  large  tracts  of  land  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  present  Germantown,  where  in 
1683  the  Frankfort  jurist,  Franz  Daniel  Pastorius, 
arriving  with  twenty  German  families,  founded  "Ger- 
man Township"  (Germantown). 


^    3,1  THE    GERMAN    LUTIIIIRANS.  35 

In  a  letter  written  by  Pastorius  to  his  father 
(1686)  we  are  told  that  a  house  of  worship  had 
been  built  in  Germantown.  Hitherto  it  has  been  be- 
lieved that  this  church  was  a  Lutheran  structure,  but 
considering  that  Pastorius  and  his  fellow-settlers  had 
shown  sectarian  tendencies  in  Germany,  from  which 
country  they  had  emigrated  for  the  purpose  of  start- 
ing a  Quaker  colony  and  that  Pastorius  as  a  per- 
sonal friend  of  William  Penn  had  ever  used  his  in- 
fluence for  the  benefit  of  Quakerism,  we  are  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  church  was  nothing  else 
than  a  Quaker  meeting  house. 

The  First  German  Lutheran  service  in  German- 
town,  in  fact,  in  America,  was  conducted  by  the  Rev. 
Heinrich  Bernhard  Koester  in  1694.  It  took  place 
in  the  home  of  a  Mennonite  by  the  name  of  Van 
Bebber.  Koester,  the  first  German  Lutheran  min- 
ister, had  arrived  w-ith  forty  immigrants,  six  of  whom 
were  theological  students  (Daniel  Falckner.  one  of 
them),  for  the  purpose  of  awaiting  the  end  of  the 
world  in  the  quiet  of  the  Wissahikon  Valley.  This 
event  was  expected  in  1697.  Although  opposed  by 
Pastorius,  the  Lutherans  continued  to  hold  services 
in  Van  Bebber's  home.  Koester  combined  with  mys- 
tical tendencies  strong  Lutheran  convictions.  He 
always  carried  with  him  a  copy  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  while  crossing  the  ocean,  he  cautioned 
his  companions  against  the  heresies  of  the  Quakers. 
As  a  preacher  he  attained  such  high  repute  that 
even  English  speaking  people  flocked  to  hear  him. 

He  soon  decided  to  preach  in  English,  left  the 
hermits  and  moved  to  Philadelphia.  The  result  of 
his   labors   in   this   city,   however,   was   the   founding 


36  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3/ 

of    the    First    Episcopal   Church    on    American    soil, 
known  as  Christ  Church. 

Soon  afterwards  (1700)  Koester  returned  to  Ger- 
many. His  chief  merit  was  his  strong  Lutheran  po- 
sition regarding  the  person  of  Christ  and  the  means 
of  grace  which  he  powerfully  emphasized  against  the 
rationalizing  influences  of  Quakerism.  Thus  he 
sowed  the  seed  of  truth  in  the  soil  of  Pennsylvania 
and  counteracted  in  a  measure  the  supremacy  of  the 
Quakers  in  the  province  of  Pennsylvania.  A  biog- 
raphy of  this  eccentric  character,  who  died  in  Han- 
nover in  1749,  is  found  in  Rathlef's  book,  "Geschichte 
jetzt  lebender  Gelehrter"  (History  of  Present  Day 
Scholars),  6th  Part  (Hannover,  1743).  J.  F.  Sachse, 
in  his  volume  on  "German  Pietists,"  treats  his  ac- 
tivity very  fully,  and  Th.  E.  Schmauk,  in  the  fourth 
chapter  on  "The  Lutheran  Church  in  Pennsylvania" 
(pages  79  to  101),  gives  a  complete  description  of 
both  the  man  and  his  work. 

Before  going  further,  we  should  add  that,  while 
Koester  held  the  first  German  Lutheran  service  on 
American  soil,  he  did  not  found  any  Lutheran  Church. 
The  first  Lutheran  congregation  was  organized  by 
Caspar  Stoever,  and  the  first  Lutheran  church  build- 
ing was  erected  by  Muhlenberg. 

One  of  those  who  immigrated  with  Koester  was 
Daniel  Falckner,  whom  we  just  mentioned,  the  oldest 
brother  of  Justus  Falckner  (compare  §  1  at  the  close), ^ 
and  to  whom  we  shall  refer  later  on.  These  two 
Falckners  were  the  sons  of  a  Lutheran  pastor  in 
Langen-Reinsdorf  near  Zwickau,  Saxony,  which  parish 
had  also  been  served  by  their  grandfather. 


§    3.^  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  37 

Daniel  (born  1666),  as  also  his  brothers  Christian 
and  Justus (  born  1672),  had  studied  theology  and  was 
ordained  either  before  his  emigration  to  America  or, 
what  seems  more  likely,  during  a  later  visit  in  Ger- 
many, 1698-1700.  When  he  was  a  Licentiate  to  the 
University  of  Erfurt,  we  find  him  in  the  Pietistic 
circle  which  gathered  around  August  Hermann 
Francke,  taking  an  active  part  in  the  Collegia 
PietatU.  While  in  Germantown,  he  sided  with 
Koester  against  Quakerism,  and  protested  against 
the  maladministration  of  the  alYairs  of  the  Frank- 
fort Land  Company  under  Pastorius.  On  account 
of  his  executive  abilities  and  his  fearless  attitude, 
he  attained  such  a  reputation  in  the  colony  that  he 
was  sent  to  Europe  on  a  mission  of  high  importance: 
he  was  to  inform  the  directors  of  the  Land  Company 
of  the  mismanagement  of  their  affairs  and  also  to 
call  attention  to  the  spiritual  neglect  of  the  province. 
For  this  purpose  he  visited  Holland,  England  and 
Germany,  and  by  his  vivid  descriptions  of  Pennsyl- 
vania encouraged  large  numbers  to  cross  the  sea. 
Accompanied  by  his  brother  Justus  and  several  theo- 
logical students,  he  returned  to  Germantown  in  1700. 
In  his  possession  he  had  a  document,  signed  by  every 
director  of  the  Land  Company,  discharging  Pastorius 
and  conferring  upon  himself  the  agency  of  the  colony. 
This  order  naturally  led  to  a  bitter  campaign  between 
Pastorius  and  Falckner,  which  resulted  in  varying 
successes.  But  eventually  (1708)  Falckner,  who  had 
bought  some  22,000  acres  of  land  (Manatawny,  the 
present  Montgomery  County),  became  a  victim  of 
the  intrigues  of  his  own  business  partners.  He  was 
imprisoned  and  lost  all  he  had.     Broken  in  spirit,  he 


38  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3,^ 

left  Pennsylvania,  and  went  to  his  brother  in  New 
Jersey,  serving  several  congregations  along  the  Rari- 
tan  River  where  his  name  is  frequently  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  work  of  Berkenmeyer  (§  3,  4). 
He  survived  Kocherthal,  also  his  own  brother,  and 
carried  on,  as  far  as  his  age  permitted,  the  work  so 
faithfully  begun  by  these  two  missionaries.  He  was 
still  living  in  1741,  but  the  time  of  his  death  and  his 
final  resting  place  are  unknown. 

After  thus  learning  of  the  first  German  settle- 
ment in  connection  with  the  names  of  Pastorius, 
Falckner  and  Koester,  let  us  get  a  brief  view  of 
Falckner's  Swamp  (New  Hanover,  Pa.).  This  lo- 
cality is  noteworthy  because  here  we  find  the  First 
German  Lutheran  Church  and  the  First  German  Lu- 
theran Congregation. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  the  largest  part  of 
the  settlers  of  the  Manatawny  district  immigrated 
with  Daniel  Falckner  in  1700,  were  organized  by  him 
into  a  congregation  and  received  until  1708  his  pas- 
toral services.  We  have  not  the  exact  date  of  the 
erection  of  the  first  church,  which  according  to  San- 
del  (§  2)  was  in  existence  in  1704.  It  was  no  doubt 
a  log  church,  which  had  to  be  replaced  by  another 
log  building  in  1721.  The  present  church  of  this  his- 
torical congregation,  although  completely  remodeled, 
was  built  in  1767.  From  1717-1728  it  was  in  charge 
of  the  Rev.  Gerhard  Henkel  (see  §  3,  6).  Later  it 
was  served  by  the  Rev.  Johann  Casper  Stoever  (§  3, 
6),  who  in  1742  was  succeeded  by  Muhlenberg  (§  4, 
1  and  2). 

True  to  our  purpose  to  treat  of  the  first  German 
Lutherans  in  America,  we  must  not  forget  that  there 


§    3.'  THE    GERMAN    LUTIIKKANS.  39 

were  some  Germans  in  the  Dutcli  congregations  of 
New  York,  who  were  constantly  increasing  their 
numbers  through  influx  of  immigration.  This  con- 
gregation, as  wc  said  before  (§  1,  at  the  close),  had 
called  the  Rev.  Justus  Falckner  (1703),  and  we  take 
this  opportunity  to  add  a  few  remarks  concerning 
this  eminent  divine.  We  have  spoken  about  his 
parentage.  He  was  one  of  the  students  who  went  to 
Halle  with  Professor  Thomasius  after  this  noted 
teacher  had  been  expelled  from  Leipzig  (1690).  He 
sat  at  the  feet  of  August  Hermann  Francke.  As  a 
student  he  composed  the  hymn  well  known  in  both 
German  and  English,  "Auf,  ihr  Christen,  Christi 
Glieder"  (Rise,  ye  children  of  salvation).  Dreading 
the  responsibilities  of  the  ministerial  ofifice,  he  settled 
with  his  brother  Daniel  in  the  quiet  woods  of  Ger- 
mantown  as  a  land  agent  of  William  Penn.  But  he 
was  called  out  of  his  seclusion  by  Pastor  Rudman, 
and  became  minister  of  the  Dutch  congregation  in 
New  York.  In  1701  he  was  ordained  in  the  Gloria  Dei 
Church  of  Wicaco  by  Swedish  clergymen  (the  first 
Lutheran  ordination  in  America^.  His  parish  com- 
prised some  two  hundred  miles,  including  all  the 
territory  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson  from  New 
York  to  Albany,  also  Long  Island.  He  retained  his 
vigor  until  he  died  (1723).  As  we  read  the  short 
but  soulful  prayers  which  he  used  to  add  to  entries 
of  oflficial  acts  in  his  parish  records.  ^-  we  can  heartily 


"The  followini?  prayer  is  added  to  the  record  of  a  baptism:  "O 
Lord  God,  let  the  name  of  this  infant  be  inscribed  in  the  book  of 
life  and  never  be  erased  therefrom!  ThrouRh  Jesns  Christ.  Amen!" 
After  baptizinpr  a  colored  child,  he  comments:  "O  Lord,  merciful 
Father,  who  art  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  considerest  acceptable 
among  all  people  those  who  do  right  and  fear  Thee,  clothe  this  child 
with     the    white    rohe    of    risrhteousness,     and    keep    it    in    the     same 


40  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3,^ 

endorse  the  words  of  Graebner :  "In  his  activity  of 
twenty  years,  the  Rev.  Justus  Falckner  impresses  us 
as  a  man  of  charming  and  captivating  personality. 
Richly  endowed,  highly  cultured,  devout  in  spirit,  ener- 
getic and  tactful,  combining  with  strong  Lutheran 
convictions  a  soul  of  unusual  tenderness,  he  was  an 
ideal  pastor." 

2.  Before  the  first  decade  of  the  century  had 
passed,  we  notice  a  new  stage  of  German  immigra- 
tion. 

No  part  of  Germany  had  suffered  as  much  as  the 
Palatinate  of  the  Rhine.  It  had  to  pay  the  penalty 
for  the  ambitions  of  its  Elector,  who  by  accepting 
the  crown  of  Bohemia  caused  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 
This  territory  was  first  invaded  by  Spinola  (1620), 
afterwards  by  the  Lutheran  Mansfield  and  finally  by 
the  Bavarian  Tilly.  What  one  left  untouched,  the 
other  destroyed.  Says  Riesdorf,  the  statesman :  "The 
Palatinate  resembles  an  Arabian  desert."  Famine 
and  pestilence  followed  the  devastating  armies.  Not 
even  for  the  length  of  a  human  life  could  peace  be 
secured.  As  early  as  1673  Louis  XIV.  began  his 
war  of  conquest.  The  third  invasion  (1688-97)  aimed 
to  place  a  vast  desert  between  the  German  and  French 
borders.  The  campaign  of  Melac  and  Montelas  has 
not  been  surpassed  in  vandalism  since  the  days  of  the 


through  Jesus  Christ,  the  Redeemer  and  Savior  of  all  mankind. 
Amen."  How  appropriate,  too,  the  baptismal  prayer  for  five  in- 
fants born  on  mid-ocean  to  immigrant  mothers  from  the  Rhenish 
Palatinate  (§  3,  3):  "O  Lord,  Almighty  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  wondrous  power  has  safely  called  these 
children  into  life  even  amid  the  storms  of  the  sea  and  has  guided 
them  safely  to  the  shore,  lead  them  also  through  the  tempestuous 
sea  of  this  world  until  they  safely  arrive  in  the  harbor  of  the 
new  heavenly  Jerusalem  where  all  tyranny  and  all  false  and  tyran- 
nical   mercy    shall    have    an    end,    through    Jesus    Christ,     Amen," 


§    3,^  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  41 

Huns  and  Mongols.  "  Louis  XIV.,  realizing  that  he 
could  not  retain  this  province,  decided  to  ravage  it 
with  fire  and  sword.  Ilis  General  informed  its  in- 
habitants, numbering  500,000,  that  they  were  to  leave 
within  three  days  if  they  desired  to  escape  death. 
Thus  in  mid-winter  the  snow-clad  hills  were  black 
with  fugitives  who,  looking  back,  discovered  their 
possessions,  their  cities,  villages,  their  orchards  and 
vineyards  in  smoke  and  ruins. 

Some  of  these  fugitives  found  a  temporary  refuge 
in  England,  where  Queen  Anne  arranged  for  their 
emigration  to  America.  They  were  joined  by  large 
numbers  who  emigrated  from  Wurtemberg,  Baden, 
and  Hesse.  Led  by  their  pastors,  these  war-stricken 
Germans  left  the  shores  of  Europe  to  partake  in  the 
greatest  spectacle  of  emigration  the  world  has  ever 
witnessed. 

3.  German  Lutheran  settlements  in  the  State  of 
New  York  followed  as  a  result  of  this  gigantic  ex- 
pedition arranged  by  the  English  Crown.  On  New 
Year's  day  of  the  year  1701  one  of  the  first  immi- 
grant trains  arrived  in  New  York  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Rev.  Joshua  Kocherthal,  a  Lutheran  min- 
ister from  Landau  in  the  Lower  Palatinate.  By  an 
order  of  Queen  Anne  this  congregation,  consisting 
of  sixty-one  people,  settled  on  the  western  banks  of 
the  Hudson  (near  Newburgh).  The  Queen  granted 
them  two  thousand  acres  of  land,  and  promised  to  pay 
twenty  pounds  annually  for  the  support  of  their  pas- 


"  Add  to  this  the  horrible  mismanagement  of  princes  who  imi- 
tated the  extravagant  life  of  the  French  court  —  at  the  expense 
of  the  country.  A  disastrous  failure  of  crops  and  a  winter  (1709) 
of  such  unusual  severity  that  birds  froze  in  the  air  filled  the 
measure    of    misery    to    overflowing. 


42  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3," 

tor,  who  was  also  to  have  the  use  of  five  hundred 
acres.  The  contract  was  made  "for  all  time."  How 
completely  this  program  has  been  changed! 

But  German  immigration  had  now  properly  be- 
gun. On  July  10,  1710,  there  arrived  in  New  York 
eleven  ships  carrying  3,000  immigrants,  700  of  whom 
had  died  during  the  stormy  voyage  or  while  placed 
under  quarantine.  The  survivors  settled  in  the  Cat- 
skill  hills  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson.  Here  they 
were  to  pay  heavily  with  the  hardest  kind  of  labor 
for  the  benefits  they  had  received  from  the  English 
crown.  Avaricious  governors  took  advantage  of 
them  and  used  them  for  purposes  of  getting  rich 
quick.  The  settlers  soon  suffered  from  hunger  and 
want.  They  went  westward  into  the  Schoharie  Valley, 
where  they  purchased  land  from  the  Indians  at  the 
price  of  $300.  Immigrants  who  arrived  later  settled 
all  along  the  Hudson.  This  meant  a  number  of  new 
congregations  (Rhinebeck  one  of  them).  In  all  of 
these  parishes  Kocherthal  was  the  pastor.  Unceas- 
ingly, until  his  death,  he  bore  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  welfare  of  his  scattered  flock  on  faithful 
shoulders.  On  one  occasion  he  went  to  England  to 
plead  with  the  government  for  better  conditions  for 
his  maltreated  countrymen.^*     His  burial  place  is  in 

"  From  this  journey  he  returned  in  1710.  Rev.  Geo.  J.  M.  Ketner 
writes  at  the  bicentennial  anniversary  of  St.  Paul's  Luth.  Church  at 
West  Camp:  "Unwillingly  they  bound  themselves  for  years  to  the 
British  Governor,  Robt.  Hunter,  to  pay  for  their  voyage  by  making  tar 
for  the  British  navy.  Persecuted  by  Hunter  and  fleeced  by  Living- 
stone, their  sufferings  from  1710-1712  were  indescribable.  The  pine 
trees  at  West  Camp  were  not  the  kind  for  making  naval  stores.  The 
governor  kept  clamoring  for  tar,  and  the  Palatines  said,  "Give  us  the 
right  kind  of  trees."  It  was  making  brick  without  straw.  In  a  howling 
wilderness,  in  log  cabins  and  bark  huts,  with  scant  clothes  and  little 
food,  they  suffered  and  shivered  in  the  winter's  cold,  and  struggled  to 
keep   soul   and  body   together.     The  cries  of  their  little  ones,   the  tears 


§    3,^  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  43 

West  Camp.     There  on  a  plain  tomb-stone  you  can 
read  the  following  inscription  : 

"Know  thou,  O  wanderer, 
'Neath  this  stone  there  sleeps 
Beside   his   Sibylla  Charlotte 
A  pilgrim  true. 

For  the  High-Germans  in  America; 
A  Joshua : 

And  for  those  East  and  West 
Of  the  Hudson  River 
A  true  Lutheran  Pastor: 
He  first  arrived  on  the  L'd  Lovelace 
1707  —  8,  January  1 
And  again  with  Col.  Hunter 
1710  June  14. 

His  trip  to  England  interrupted 
By  the  soul's  journey  to  Heaven 
St.  John's  Day.  1719; 
And  would'st  thou  know  more 
Inquire  at  the  home  of  Melanchthon 
Who  Kocherthal  was 
Who  Harschias  and 
Who  Winchenbach. 

B.   Berkenmayer,  S.  Heurtien,  L.   Brevort 
MDCCXLH 


of  their  wives  made  the  strong  men  weep.  Governor  ilunter  disputed 
the  titles  to  their  homes  and  persecuted  them  incessantly.  So  neg- 
lected were  they  at  one  time  by  the  man  who  was  sworn  to  be  their 
protector  that  much  against  their  wills  they  had  to  throw  themselves 
on  the  mercy  of  the  Indians,  or  starve.  Some,  weary  of  this  intolerable 
slavery,  cut  their  way  to  Schoharie  (of.  §  3,  6).  Others  forged  their  way 
to  the  head-waters  of  the  Susquehanna.  The  majority,  however,  re- 
mained .-it  West  Camp.  It  was  not  until  1717  that  the  awful  traces  of 
poverty  began  to  disappear  among  them.  The  orphan  children  and 
those  of  surviving  widows,  whose  husbands  died  in  that  awful  voyage 
cf  1710,  were  by  the  inexorable  Hunter  apprenticed  among  strangers. 
Some  were  never  seen  again.  Think  what  this  means!  No  wonder 
they  complained  and  started  a  mutiny.  The  only  place  where  for  the 
time  being  they  forgot  their  sorrows  and  wrongs,  was  in  the  little  log 
church  where  pastor  Kocherthal  comforted  them  with  such  consolations 
which   the   holy   religion  of  Jesus  Christ   alone  could   give." 


44  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3,^ 

Rev.  Geo.  J.  Ketner,  the  present  pastor  of  the  old  con- 
gregation of  Kocherthal  at  West  Camp,  writes  in  a  his- 
torical sketch  of  St.  Paul's  church:  "Tenderly  his  beloved 
people  laid  his  weary  frame  to  rest  beside  the  remains  of 
Sibylla  Charlotte,  his  devoted  wife.  *  *  *  But  in  the 
year  1898  their  remains  were  exhumed  and  placed  in  a  crypt 
in  the  church,  and  the  tablet  containing  its  quaint  inscrip- 
tion which  once  rested  on  his  grave  was  placed  in  the 
vestibule  of  the  church  over  their  remains." 

After  the  departure  of  Pastor  Kocherthal  in  1719  Justus 
Falckner  served  them  up  to  the  time  of  his  death  in  1723. 
He  was  followed  by  Daniel  Falckner  in  1724.  Then  came 
Berkenmeyer,  the  son-in-law  of  Kocherthal,  who  visited 
them  until  his  death  in  1751.  Rev.  M.  C.  Knoll  also  served 
for  a  time.  He  visited  them  three  times  a  year  and  re- 
ceived as  salary  thirty  bushels  of  wheat. 

Rev.  Ketner  writes:  "St.  Paul's  Ev.  Lutheran  Church 
at  West  Camp  is  one  of  the  oldest  Lutheran  churches  in 
America.  It  antedates  every  Lutheran  body  in  this  country. 
It  is  38  years  older  than  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania. 
Its  people  worshipped  in  their  little  log  church  before 
Muhlenberg,  the  patriarch  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, was  born.  It  is  66  years  older  than  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  110  years  older  than  the  General  Synod 
to  which  it  belongs." 

Note:  Among  the  emigrants  of  the  Rhenish  Palatinate 
who  arrived  from  England  in  1710  was  John  Conrad  Weiser, 
Sen.,  formerly  a  magistrate  of  Gross-Aspach,  Wurtemberg, 
who  soon  distinguished  himself  by  looking  after  the  wel- 
fare of  his  suffering  countrymen.  To  protect  property 
rights  of  the  new  settlement  in  the  Schoharie  Valley  he 
journeyed  to  England,  but  was  robbed  by  pirates,  impris- 
oned in  England  and  returned  home  broken  in  health.  He 
died  in  1746. 

Even  better  known  and  closely  connected  with,  the  his- 
tory of  the  country  is  his  son  John  Conrad  Weiser,  Jun. 
Born  1696,  he  arrived  with  his  father  in  New  York.  When 
seventeen  years  old  he  followed  an  Indian  chief  who  had 
been  visiting  in   his   father's  house   and   whom  he  greatly 


§    3/  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  45 

admired.  He  was  with  the  Indians  eight  months  and  later 
fifteen  years,  acquiring  their  language  and  studying  their 
customs.  This  enabled  him  to  render  most  useful  services 
to  his  countrymen  at  the  time  when  he  became  head  of  the 
Indian  bureau  of  the  English  government  of  Pennsylvania, 
serving  from  1732  to  the  year  of  his  death  1760.  During 
the  Indian  war  and  at  the  conclusion  of  peace  he  looked 
after  the  interests  of  the  German  colony.  His  daughter, 
Anna  Maria,  became  the  wife  of  the  patriarch  Muhlenberg. 
See  §  4,  2,  annotation. 

4.  Pastor  Berkeiuneyer  and  hU  Circle.  After 
the  death  of  Falckner,  the  first  Dutch  congregation 
of  New  "^'ork  (among  whom  were  many  Germans) 
petitioned  the  Lutheran  Consistory  of  Amsterdam 
for  a  pastor.  Thus  a  call  was  extended  to  Wilhchn 
Christoph  Berkenmeyer,  then  a  theological  candidate 
in  Hamburg,  who,  after  some  hesitation,  accepted. 
In  1725  he  was  ordained  in  Amsterdam,  and  im- 
mediately left  for  New  York.  He  was  a  man  of 
thorough  culture,  strict  Lutheran  convictions  and  of 
a  pleasing  presence.  He  soon  had  the  confidence  of 
his  people.  This  was  evidenced  by  a  spirit  of  enter- 
prise which  resulted  in  the  building  of  a  new  church, 
In  June,  1739,  it  was  consecrated,  and  was  known 
as  Holy  Trinity  ("Dreieinigkeitskirche")  of  New 
York.  Later,  however,  Berkenmeyer  made  Lunen- 
burg the  headquarters  of  his  work.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Pastor  Chr.  Knoll,  a  native  of  Holstein, 
who  on  the  strength  of  some  recommendations  from 
Hamburg  was  called  by  the  Consistory  of  London 
(see  foot  notes  §  3,  7).  He  was  soon  followed  by 
Magister  Wolff,  a  native  of  Hamburg,  who,  after  a 
brief  pastorate,  had  to  be  disciplined  on  account  of 
charges  of  improper  conduct.     The  Rev.   Peter  Nic. 


46  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3,^ 

Sommer,  also  a  native  of  Hamburg,  was  chiefly  en- 
gaged in  work  in  the  Schoharie  Valley.  He  was  an 
able,  yet  modest  man.  Though  blind  for  twenty 
years,  he  performed  his  duties  faithfully  to  the  end. 
In  this  circle  of  ministers  Berkenmeyer  (who  died  in 
1753)  was  not  only  the  oldest  but  the  most  talented. 
The  period  of  their  activity  runs  parallel  with  that  of 
Muhlenberg  and  his  co-workers  in  Pennsylvania ; 
also  with  that  of  the  Salzburg  missionaries  along  the 
Savannah  River  in  Georgia  (§  3,  5).  But  Berkenmeyer 
and  his  circle  persistently  refused  to  have  fellowship 
with  the  circle  that  had  come  from  Halle,  owing,  no 
doubt,  to  the  Pietistic  controversies  which  at  that 
time  agitated  the  theological  world  of  Germany  and 
in  which  controversy  Berkenmeyer  took  a  strong  po- 
sition on  the  side  of  stricter  Lutheranism. 

5.  The  Salzburgers.  Among  the  early  Lutheran 
settlers  of  the  Southern  States  the  Salzburg  immi- 
grants of  Georgia  play  a  prominent  part.  The 
fanatical  archbishop,  Leopold  Anton  of  Salzburg 
(Baron  von  Firmian),  having  tried  in  vain  to  ex- 
terminate the  Lutheran  Church  in  his  diocese,  re- 
sorted to  measures  of  intrigue.  He  claimed  to  be 
tolerant,  and  asked  every  one  to  put  their  confes- 
sional preferences  on  record.  Thus  he  discovered 
that  there  were  twenty  thousand  "Evangelicals"  who 
had  delivered  themselves  into  his  hands.  Realizing 
that  they  had  been  trapped,  three  hundred  of  them 
formed  the  "Salzbund"  (Salt-Confederacy),  vowing 
that,  though  they  were  forced  to  a  diet  of  salt  and 
bread,  they  would  not  prove  untrue  to  their  religious 
convictions.  This  action  furnished  the  foundation  for 
the  charge  that  the   Evangelicals  had  decided  upon 


§    3,'  THE    C.ERMAN    LUTHERANS.  47 

the  overthrow  of  the  CathoHc  Church.  On  October 
31,  1731,  there  was  issued  a  decree  of  emigration: 
all  those  refusing  to  become  Catholics  were  ordered 
to  emigrate  and  to  leave  at  home  their  children  not 
i^f  age.  In  vain  the  Salzburgers  appealed  to  the  Em- 
])eror  and  to  the  Protestant  princes.  Only  Frederick- 
William  of  Prussia  pleaded  their  cause  and  invited 
20,000  of  them  to  settle  in  Litiuiania.  The  King  of 
ICngland  ordered  a  collection  for  them  which  amounted 
to  some  $200,000.  The  majority  of  rulers  were  fanat- 
ical and  merciless.  Thus  these  persecuted  Evan- 
i;elicals  had  to  leave  their  children  to  be  educated 
in  Catholic  institutions.  With  wounded  hearts,  but 
with  hymns  of  praise  on  their  lips,  they  wandered 
through  the  cities  and  villages  of  Germany  singing 
the  song  composed  by  Schaitberger,  the  leader  of 
a  former  exile : 

"I  bin  ein  armer  Exulant, 
A  so  thu  i  mi  schreiba, — 
Ma  thuet  mi  aus  dem  Vaterland 
Um  Gottes  Wort  vertreiba. 

Des  was  i  wohl,  Herr  Jesu  mein, 

Es  ist  dir  a  so  ganga, 
Jetzt  will  i  dein  Nachfolger  sein, 

Herr!  mach's  na  dein  \'erlanga. 

So  muss  i  heut  von  meinem  Haus, 

Die  Kindel  muss  i  losa, 
Mei  Gott,  es  treibt  mir  Zahrel  aus, 

Zu   wandern    fremde    Strossa. 

Mein  Gott,  fiihr  mi  in  ane  Stadt 

Wo  i  dein  Wort  kann  hoba, 
Darin  i  di  will  fruh  und  spat 

In  meinem  Herzen  loba." 


48  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3/ 

"An  exile  poor,  and  nothing  more, 
This  is  my  sole  profession; 
Banished  from  home,  of  God's  pure  word 
To  make  a  clear  confession. 

O  Jesus  mine,  I  know  full  well 

This   is  the  way  Thou  wentest. 
Thy  steps  we'll  follow,  dearest  Lord, 

And  bear  what  Thou  hast  sent  us. 

So  forth  I  go  from  my  dear  home. 

0  Lord,  the  tears  are  starting; 

As  through  strange  streets  I  press  my  way 

1  think  of  the  sad  parting. 

A  country.  Lord,  I  ask  of  Thee, 

Where  I  Thy  Word  may  cherish. 
Where,  day  and  night,  within  my  heart 

The  fruits  of  faith  may  flourish." 

A  large  number  of  these  Salzburg  exiles  immi- 
grated to  America.    The  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  Urlsperger, 

of  Augsburg,  interceding  for  them  at  London,  pre- 
vailed on  the  English  government  to  give  them  free 
passage  to  Georgia,  to  take  care  of  them  for  a  year, 
to  let  them  and  their  children  have  free  use  of  certain 
lands  for  a  period  of  ten  years  (after  that  at  a 
nominal  rental),  and  to  confer  on  them  the  rights  of 
English  citizenship  and  also  freedom  to  v^orship  God. 
All  of  these  promises  have  been  faithfully  kept.  The 
ocean  voyage  of  the  Salzburgers  and  their  arrival  in 
Georgia  have  been  charmingly  described  by  the  Am- 
erican historian  Bancroft  in  his  third  volume  on  the 
"History  of  the  United  States"  (22  ed.  1873,  p.  424)  : 

"In  January,  1734,  they  set  sail  for  their  new  homes. 
The  majesty  of  the  ocean  quickened  their  sense  of  God's 
omnipotence  and  wisdom;  and  as  they  lost  sight  of  land, 
they  broke  out  into  a  hymn  to  His  glory.    The  setting  sun, 


§    3.*  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  49 

after  a  calm,  so  kindled  the  sea  and  skj-,  that  words  could 
not  express  their  rapture,  and  they  cried  out,  'How  lovely 
the  creation!  How  infinitely  lovely  the  Creator!'  When 
the  wind  was  adverse  they  prayed;  and,  as  it  changed,  one 
opened  his  mind  to  the  other  on  the  power  of  prayer,  even 
the  prayer  'of  a  man  subject  to  like  passions  as  we  are.' 
A  devout  listener  confessed  himself  to  be  an  unconverted 
man  ;  and  they  reminded  him  of  the  protnise  to  him  that  is 
poor  and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  trembleth  at  the  Word. 
As  they  sailed  pleasantly  with  a  favoring  breeze,  at  the 
hour  of  evening  prayer  they  made  a  covenant  with  each 
other,  like  Jacob  of  old,  and  resolved  by  the  grace  of  Christ 
to  cast  all  strange  gods  into  the  depth  of  the  sea.  In  Feb- 
ruary a  storm  grew  so  high  that  not  a  sail  could  be  set; 
and  they  raised  their  voices  in  prayer  and  song  amid  the 
tempest;  for  to  love  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a  brother  gave  con- 
solation. At  Charleston,  Oglethorpe  on  the  18th  of  March, 
1734,  bade  them  welcome:  and  in  five  days  more  the  way- 
farers, whose  home  was  beyond  the  skies,  pitched  their 
tents  near  Savannah." 

Gratefully  recog-nizing  God's  gracious  guidance, 
they  called  the  place  of  their  settlement  Ebenezer. 
Three  other  ships,  loaded  chiefly  with  Salzburgers,  ' ' 
arrived  during  the  following  year,  thus  increasing 
the  population  of  the  colony  to  1200. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  foresee  that  these  people 
would  prosper  in  their  new  home.  Under  their 
thrifty  hands  the  virg-in  forest  became  a  blossoming 


*^  In  this  second  edition  we  will  have  to  deny  ourselves  the 
telling  of  the  charming  story  which  Strobel  relates  regarding  the 
influence  of  the  Salzburgers  on  the  Wesleys.  The  historicity  of  the 
beautiful  story  is  doubtful.  Strobel  admits  that  Wesley  mentions 
only  "Moravians,"  but  claims  that  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
Wesley  did  not  know  the  diflference  between  the  Moravians  and 
the  Sal7.burger.<i.  Dr.  A.  G.  Voigt,  President  of  the  Seminary  of  the 
L'niteci  Synod  of  the  South  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  wrote  us:  "I  once 
made  a  careful  comparison  of  Urlsperger's  Nachrichten  and  Wesley's 
Journal,  and  found  no  evidence  that  there  were  Salzburgers  on  the 
ship  on   which   Wesley   was." 


50  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3,' 

garden.    The  four  churches,  Jerusalem,  Zion,  Bethany 
and  Goshen,  served  their  spiritual  wants,  and  their 
ministers,  Boltzius  and  Gronau,  who  had  been  trained 
in  Halle  and  had  accompanied  them  across  the  sea, 
were  pastors  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.     Every 
Sunday  they  held  three  services,  and  every  evening, 
their  tasks  done  and  supper  over,  the  people  gathered 
in  their  churches   to  receive   some  religious  instruc- 
tion, the  children  in  the  Catechism,  the  grown-ups 
in  the  Bible.    During  the  first  baptism  all  the  children 
of  the  congregation  were  called  to  the  altar  to  have 
this  sacrament  explained  to  them.     From  the  minis- 
terial reports  sent  to  Halle  we  gather  that  everywhere 
in  this  settlement  Biblical  teaching  produced  glorious 
results.     The  people   freely   forgave  those  who  had 
wronged   them ;    scenes   of  death   were   transfigured 
with  rays  of  triumph,  and  even  young  children  fought 
the  good  fight  of  faith.     No  secular  authority  was 
needed.      All    controversies    were    settled    by    their 
spiritual  leaders,  who  were  universally  recognized  as 
fathers.     The  community  of  Ebenezer  remained  free 
from   the  polluting  influences   of   the   outside   world. 
It  was  truly  ruled  by  the  Christ. 

The  descendants  of  the  Salzburgers  are  still  in 
that  vicinity.  In  Savannah  they  have  a  flourishing 
English  Lutheran  church,  a  large  percentage  of  whose 
members  are  Germans.  In  Effingham  County  they 
represent  the  vital  element  of  the  eight  churches 
of  the  Georgia  Synod,  which  at  present  is  a  part  of 
the  United  Synod  of  the  South   (§  14). 

Other  Lutherans  in  the  South.  Besides  this  congrega- 
tion we  discover  a  number  of  other  colonies  all  along  the 
coast.     While   these   Lutherans  did  not  play  a  very  prom- 


§    3.*  THE    GER.NtAX    LUTHERANS.  5I 

inent  part  in  the  history  of  that  time,  we  should  mention 
them,  because  from  these  settlements  emerged  those  synods 
and  congregations  which  today  form  the  United  Synod  of 
the  South  :  Newberry,  N.  C,  near  Perrysburg,  S.  C,  Charles- 
ton, St.  Simon  Island,  Congress  (Saxe-Gotha),  Rowan  and 
Cabarrass  County  (Pastor  Xuessman),  S.  C,  and  Spottsyl- 
vania  Co.,  Va.  (Pastor  Klug  1736-61). 

6.     Lutheran   Settiements    in   Pennsylvania.      We 

have  mentioned  the  congregations  of  Germanlown, 
of  Falckner*8  Swamp  and  of  Philadelphia  (§  3,  1). 

Another  Lutheran  organization  was  effected,  when 
the  immigrants  from  the  Rhenish  Palatinate  moved 
out  of  the  Schoharie  Valley  (§  3,  3).  As  soon  as 
these  thrifty  settlers,  after  escaping  from  the  ex- 
tortions of  the  New  York  governors,  had  cultivated 
their  new  possessions  and  made  the  wilderness  blos- 
som like  the  rose,  they  were  informed  that  the  Con- 
tracts they  had  made  with  the  Indians  concerning  the 
transfer  of  land  were  null  and  void.  The  government 
would  not  recognize  the  ownership  of  the  Indians. 
Unscrupulous  speculators  of  New  York  had  fraudu- 
lently acquired  title  to  these  lands,  and  the  helpless 
settlers  were  forced  either  to  rent  from  the  land- 
sharks  or  to  seek  other  quarter.^.  Many  of  them  de- 
cided to  emigrate  again  and  to  accept  the  invitation 
of  Governor  Keith  of  Pennsylvania.  Led  by  friendly 
?n  liruv;,  they  journeyed  three  hundred  miles  along 
the  Susquehanna  River,  and  settled  in  the  vicinity 
of  Reading,  Pa.  (Tulpehoken,  the  place  where  Mill 
Creek  flows  into  the  Tulpehoken).  News  of  their  ex- 
perience reaching  Germany  caused  the  great  stream 
r»f  emigration  from  that  country  to  be  diverted  from 
New  York  to  Pennsylvania.  This  is  said  to  account 
for  the  fact  that  Pennsylvania  is  a  stronger  Lutheran 
state  than  New  York. 


52  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3," 

At  this  particular  time  German  immigration  had 
reached  a  high  water  mark.     It  was  largely  caused 
by  men  called  "Newlanders"  who  had  been  in  America 
and  made  it  a  business  by  glowing  descriptions  and 
golden   promises   to   induce   others   to   start   for  the 
new    country.      They    were    generally    employed    by 
Dutch  financiers  who  made  money  out  of  emigration. 
The  emigrants  arriving  in  Holland  by  the  river  route 
had    generally    spent    all    their    money    on    the    trip. 
Penniless  and  friendless,  they  had  to  sign  contracts 
printed  in  English   (therefore  unintelligible  to  them) 
which  placed  them  altogether  into  the  hands  of  these 
slave-dealers.     Thus  they  embarked  on  ships  which 
first  made  for  British  ports,  where  their  papers  were 
made  out  and  freight  was  taken  aboard.     In  crowded 
vessels   and   after   a   long   journey,   they   arrived   at 
Philadelphia.     But  no  one  was  allowed  to  go  ashore. 
They  were  landed  in  small  groups  and  had  to  swear 
allegiance  to  the  British  Crown.    After  that  only  they 
who  had  paid   for  their  passage  were  permitted  to 
leave  the  ship.     Those  unable  to  do  this  were  hired 
out   (practically  sold)   to  Dutch,  English  or  German 
land-sharks,  and  had  to  work  out  their  debt  in  long 
years  of  toil.     This  white  slavery  was  instrumental 
in  breaking  up  families.     Some  were  forced  into  con- 
ditions   of    hardship,    others    found    good    positions. 
Eventually    the    law    regulated    these    transactions, 
which,  however,  were  not  prohibited  until  1817.     The 
people  sold  were  known  as  "Redemptioners."^® 

In  the  year  1750,  according  to  Zinzendorf,  there 
were  about  sixty  thousand  Germans  in  Pennsylvania, 


I'See      Hallische      Nachrichten:       Friederich      Kapp,      Gesch.      der 
Deutschen    in    New    York. 


§    3.'  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  53 

the  Lutherans  outnumbering  the  Re  formed  two  to 
one.  \Vc  hear  of  the  following  congregations  (preach- 
ing places)  :  Philadelphia,  Falckner's  Swamp  or  New 
Hanover,  Providence  or  Trappe,  Germantown,  Lan- 
caster, New  Holland  or  Earltown,  Tulpehoken,  In- 
dianfield,  Old  Goshopen,  Orange  County. 

This  large  territory  was  served  by  but  few  min- 
isters, of  whom  we  mention  Gerhard  Henkel,  Daniel 
Falckner  (brother  of  Justus,  §  3,  1)  and  Johann  Cas- 
par Stoever,  Jun.  No  wonder  religious  degeneration 
was  soon  in  evidence.  Zinzendorf  tells  us  that  blas- 
phemers were  accused  of  having  "the  Pennsylvania 
religion." 

The  two  Stoevers,  father  and  son,  came  to  America  in 
1728.  They  were  close  relatives  of  Johann  Philipp  Fresen- 
ius,  who  took  a  warm  interest  in  the  founding  of  the 
Lutheran  church  of  America. 

Johann  Caspar  Stoever,  Sen.,  who  is  supposed  to  have 
organized  the  noted  St.  Michael's  congregation  of  Phila- 
delphia (see  §  3,  7;  4,  1,  2,  4,  5,  6;  6,  2),  was  ordained  in 
1732  as  Lutheran  pastor  of  Spottsylvania,  Virginia  (Madi- 
son County),  where  Henkel  had  preached  before  him.  Stoe- 
ver's  annual  salary  consisted  of  three  thousand  pounds  of 
tobacco.  In  1734  the  congregation  sent  him  on  a  fund  rais- 
ing trip  to  Germany.  He  collected  three  thousand  pounds 
of  sterling  for  church  building  purposes  and  induced  a 
theological  student,  by  name  of  Klug,  to  be  ordained  for 
the  ministry  in  America.  On  his  way  back  to  America 
Stoever  died  (1738).     His  body  was  buried  in  the  sea. 

Of  greater  interest  is  the  name  of  his  son,  Johann 
Caspar  Stoever.  He  was  only  twenty-one  years  old  when 
he  arrived  in  America  (1728).  Though  not  ordained,  he 
performed  many  ministerial  acts  simply  because  at  that 
time  there  was  a  scarcity  of  ordained  ministers.  In  the 
year  1731  he  went  to  Raritan,  N.  J.,  and  asked  the  aging 
Daniel  Falckner  (§3,1)  to  ordain  him.  Falckner  declined. 
Two  years  later  he  was  ordained  by  Pastor  Schulze,  of  Phil- 


54  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  §    3/ 

adelphia,  whose  congregation  he  was  to  serve  during  the 
latter's  trip  to  Germany.  This  was  the  second  Lutheran 
ordination  on  American  soil  and  took  place  in  Providence 
in  a  stable  which  was  part  of  the  congregational  property. 
Stoever  traveled  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  wherever  he  found  any  scattered  Lutherans, 
he  organized  them  into  congregations.  Almost  all  the 
preaching  places  mentioned  above  were  established  by  him, 
and  whenever  he  performed  any  ministerial  acts  he  re- 
corded them  in  church  registers,  so  that  the  historian  of 
today  has  no  difficulty  in  tracing  his  unceasing  activity. 
He  did  not  stand  on  good  terms  with  Muhlenberg  and  his 
followers.  Xot  until  1768  did  he  join  the  synod  they  organ- 
ized (§  4,  5).  Although  devoted  to  his  work  and  a  loj'al 
Lutheran  and  in  spite  of  his  self-denying  missionary  trips, 
we  discern  in  him  a  somewhat  mercenary  view  of  the  min- 
isterial office.  He  lacked  the  deep  devotion,  the  passion 
for  souls  and  the  far-seeing  eye  of  Muhlenberg,  who  ever 
urged  beyond  a  mere  local  activity  the  greater  goal  of 
Lutheran  organization  (§  4,  9).  He  was  pastor  at  Lebanon, 
Pa.,  when  he  died  suddenly  in  1779  during  a  service  of  con- 
firmation at  the  age  of  seventy-five  j^ears.  His  life  was 
eventful,  and  revealed  the  strong  features  of  the  Lutheran 
pioneer.  (See  Dr.  Schmauk,  "The  Luth.  Church  of  Penn- 
sylvania," I,  p.  244-275.) 

7.  An  Eventful  Step.  While  thus  the  min- 
isterial supply  was  at  a  ven-  low  ebb,  three  congrega- 
tions joined  in  an  enterprise  which  in  God's  wise 
Providence  resulted  in  the  immigration  of  a  man 
whose  personality  has  meant  innumerable  blessings 
for  the  Lutheran  church  of  America.  A  delegation 
was  sent  from  Philadelphia,  Providence  (Trappe) 
and  New  Hanover  (Falckner's  Swamp)  to  Pastor 
Ziegenhagen,  court-preacher  at  London,''  and  to  Prof. 
Dr.  A.  G.  Francke  (son  of  August  Hermann  Francke) 
of  Halle,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  church  building 

"See    Germann's    Autobiography,    pages    37-104. 


§    3.'  THE    GERMAN    LUTHERANS.  55 

funds.  More  particularly  they  were  to  secure  an 
able  clergyman  (1734).  These  negotiations  extended 
over  a  long  period.  Francke  and  Ziegenhagen  insisted 
that  the  question  of  salary  would  have  to  be  settled ; 
the  delegates  explained  that  this  could  not  be  done 
until  the  minister  had  entered  the  field.  The  case 
was  argued  for  several  years.  But  finally  the  au- 
thorities of  Halle  decided  to  act.  They  sent  the 
very  man  needed  for  the  work  among  the  Lutherans 
of  Pennsylvania,  the  Reverend  Heinrich  Melchior 
Muhlenberg.  This  man  was  destined  to  become  the 
real  founder  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America. 
The  reason  why  this  sudden  action  was  taken  is 
partly  due  to  the  appearance  on  American  soil  of 
a  spiritual  leader  who  had  accomplished  great  good 
in  Germany,  but  whose  work  wrought  confusion 
among  the  Lutherans  of  Pennsylvania. 

8.  This  was  Count  Von  Zinzendorf.  Having  been 
exiled  from  Saxony,  he  had  decided  to  use  the  time  of 
his  expatriation  to  do  missionary  work  among  the 
Indians  of  America.  Thus  engaged,  he  heard  of  the 
spiritual  needs  of  the  Pennsylvania  Lutherans.  He 
made  Germantown  his  head-quarters,  and  thence  he 
traversed  the  country  in  every  direction.  He  met  in 
a  conference  (1742)  with  four  Seventh-day  Baptists 
(of  Ephrata),  some  other  Baptists  and  Mennonites, 
some  Lutherans  and  Reformed.  His  aim  was  to  unite 
them  all.  He  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Phila- 
delphia Lutherans.  They  called  him  and  he  accepted. 
He  preached  for  them,  administered  the  sacraments, 
and  accepting  their  call  he  became  their  pastor.  He 
gave  up  his  title  as  a  Count,  called  himself  Herr  von 
Thuernstein  (after  one  of  his  estates),  and  assumed 


56  THE   GERMAN    LUTHERANS,  §    3,* 

the  title  "Evangelical  Lutheran  Inspector  and  Pas- 
tor of  Philadelphia."  At  the  same  time  he  looked 
after  the  Reformed,  ordained  a  pastor  and  prepared 
a  catechism  for  them  just  as  he  had  previously  pub- 
lished Luther's  Catechism  for  the  Lutherans.  Alto- 
gether he  held  eight  conferences  for  the  purpose 
of  uniting  the  various  churches.  But  the  more  he 
labored,  the  worse  the  confusion.  The  Reformed 
Pastor  Boehme  warned  against  him  in  a  special 
pamphlet  of  some  ninety  pages.  Zinzendorf  finally 
realized  that  in  order  to  attain  results  he  would 
have  to  organize  his  followers.  He  founded  the 
Moravian  Brotherhood.  Even  to-day  in  certain  parts 
of  Pennsylvania  —  Bethlehem,  for  instance  —  we  can 
find  Moravian  congregations  whose  origin  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  work  of  Zinzendorf. 

The  theologians  of  Halle  were  determined  op- 
ponents of  Zinzendorf.  While  they  recognized  the 
fact  that  he  was  the  god-child  of  Spener,  the  pupil 
of  Francke,  educated  in  the  school  of  Pietism, 
the  Halle  School  of  theology,  though  not  ultra-con- 
servatively  Lutheran,  feared  Zinzendorf's  way  of  con- 
fusing earnest  souls.  Moreover,  they  did  not  wish 
to  be  held  responsible  by  their  opponents  (during  the 
Pietistic  controversies)  for  the  eccentricities  of  their 
pupil.  Not  without  apprehension  they  had  seen  him 
enter  upon  his  foreign  mission,  and  when  they  heard 
that,  instead  of  preaching  to  the  Indians,  he  was  as- 
suming leadership  among  the  Pennsylvania  Germans, 
they  hastened  to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  the  Am- 
erican delegation  and  sent  Muhlenberg. 

9.  Review.  Looking  back  over  the  history  of 
Lutheranism  thus   far  recorded,  we  notice  one  out- 


§    3,"  THE    GERMAN    LUTIIKKANS.  57 

Standing  fact  —  that,  while  scattered  congregations 
were  starting  here  and  there,  there  was  no  sign,  ex- 
cepting among  the  Swedes,  of  a  general  organization. 

The  mission  of  this  period  was  to  gather  Lutheran 
families  into  congregations,  and  this  mission  had 
been  partly  accomplished.  In  the  affairs  of  the  Swedes 
the  home  church  took  an  active  interest  from  the 
beginning.  In  the  case  of  the  emigrants  of  the 
Palatinate,  Kocherthal,  aided  by  England,  had  done 
this  work.  The  Salzburgers  were  taken  care  of  by 
the  German  Lutherans  and  the  English  government. 
But  a  great  number  had  to  help  themselves.  Indi- 
viduals got  together,  and  appealing  to  their  native 
land,  tried  to  secure  ministers.  Since  clergymen  were 
scarce,  spiritual  vagabonds  and  men  of  the  lowest 
character  took  advantage  of  the  situation. 

A  small  number  of  congregations  came  into  ex- 
istence (50  or  more  in  the  year  1740).  But  there 
was  no  thought  of  incorporating  them  into  a  larger 
body.  The  tendency  was  toweurd  dispersion  and  cm 
eventual  absorption  of  these  scattered  flocks  by  de- 
nominational churches.  Zinzendorf.  though  {)ersonally 
devout,  saw  a  chance  of  building  up  his  own  church 
over  the  ruins  of  Lutheranism. 

It  was  most  essential  for  the  Lutheran  Church 
that  the  scattered  congregations  should  be  gathered 
into  a  larger  organization,  that  they  should  rally 
around  the  banner  of  the  Lutheran  faith,  and  that 
they  should  be  supplied  with  worthy  and  reliable  min- 
ister?. The  time  had  come  for  the  organization  of  the 
church.  This  supreme  duty  of  the  second  period  of 
Lutheran  development  was  clearly  recognized  and  ad- 
mirably performed  by  —  Heinrich  Melchior  Muhlen- 
berg. 


THE  SECOND  PERIOD. 


CONGREGATIONS  ORGANIZED  INTO  SYNODS. 

DURING  the  period  which  we  are  now  to  study  the 
scattered  flocks  were  gathered  into  organic  unity. 
A  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  became  organized 
under  Muhlenberg.  It  furnished  the  foundation 
for  ultimate  success.  It  absorbed  the  Dutch  church  and 
later  the  congregations  of  Berkenmeyer.  It  would  have 
assimilated  the  Swedish  churches,  if  the  organizing  forces 
had  been  large  enough.  With  the  advent  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Ministerium,  the  Lutheran  Church  steps  out  of  the 
stage  of  scattered  congregations  into  the  stage  of  a  sys- 
tematized ecclesiastical  body.  This  organization,  in  its 
final  analysis,  was  the  work  of  the  German  mother-church. 
She  supplied  the  largest  number  of  men  and  also  their 
financial  support.  Without  her  assistance  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  America  would  have  been  lost  beyond  redemp- 
tion. It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  War  of  Independence 
terminated  this  relation  with  the  mother-church  before  the 
American  offspring  had  grown  strong  enough  to  look 
entirely  after  its  own  interests.  The  new  development 
created  new  problems  which  were  only  partially  solved  in 
this  period.  We  refer  to  the  question  of  language,  the 
looking  after  new  territory  and  the  training  of  competent 
ministers. 

(59) 


CHAPTER  II. 

MUHLENBERG  AND  THE  FOUNDING  OF  THE  FIRST 
LUTHERAN  SYNOD. 


§  4.     Muhlenberg  and  His  Work. 

1.  Muhlenberg's  Call  and  Arrival.  Heinrich  Mel- 
chior  Aluhlenberg  (born  at  Eimbeck,  Hanover,  Sept. 
6,  1711),  descended  from  a  lamil}'  which  had  lost  title 
and  estate  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  Under 
such  disadvantages  he  had  received  his  preparatory 
education,  struggling  all  along  the  line.  As  a  student 
of  theology,  he  entered  the  University  of  Goettingen, 
where  he  graduated  in  1738.  Having  come  in  con- 
tact with  the  influences  of  Halle  which  decided  his 
future  career,  he  intended  to  be  sent  as  missionary 
to  East  India.  But  for  the  time  being  this  plan  did 
not  seem  to  be  feasible,  and  he  accepted  (August, 
1739)  a  call  to  Grosshennersdorf,  not  far  from  Herrn- 
hut,  the  estate  of  Zinzendorf.  On  Sept  6,  1741,  he 
paid  a  visit  to  Francke,  who  asked  him  whether  he 
would  accept  a  call  to  the  three  congregations  of 
Pennsylvania:  Philadelphia.  Providence  and  New 
Hanover  (§  3,  7).  Muhlenberg,  considering  this  a 
divine  call,  accepted.  "The  dear  spouse  of  Dr.  Francke 
was  so  elated  that  she  made  a  present  to  the  poor 
deacon  in  the  form  of  a  Schlafrock"  (a  long,  loose 
coat  used  in  Europe  for  comfort  at  home).  On  Dec. 
17th  he  went  to  London,  where  he  prepared  himself 
for  his   new  work  by  taking  a  two   months'  course 

(61) 


62  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,^ 

in  English.  During  his  ocean  trip,  lasting  110  days, 
passengers  and  crew  were  transformed  into  a  con- 
gregation, which  Muhlenberg  served  with  wonderful 
zeal  both  as  pastor  and  preacher.  He  landed  at 
Charleston  Sept.  23,  1742,  and  thence  visited  Ebenezer, 
the  home  of  the  Salzburgers  (§  3,  5).  After  a  short 
stay  of  eight  days,  he  proceeded  to  Pennsylvania. 
Taking  leave,  he  sang:  "So  lasst  uns  denn  dem  lieben 
Herrn  mit  Leib  und  Seel'  nachgehen ;  und  wohlge- 
mut,  getrost  und  gern  bei  Ihm  in  Leiden  stehen." 
("We  offer,  O  beloved  Lord,  body  and  soul  to  Thee  ; 
made  strong  by  Thy  assuring  word,  e'en  in  Geth- 
semane"). 

After  a  journey  of  the  most  intense  hardship,  his 
clothes  soaked  with  water,  while  he  lay  ill  among 
cursing  fellow-patients,  he  arrived  at  Philadelphia, 
Nov.  25,  1742.  Here  Zinzendorf  claimed  to  be  pastor 
of  the  congregation  (§  3,  8),  but  no  welcome  was 
given  to  the  arriving  minister.  A  meeting  was  called 
with  Zinzendorf  as  chairman,  during  which  Muhlen- 
berg was  questioned,  in  a  manner  very  humiliating 
to  him  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the  call  which  had 
been  extended  to  him  through  Ziegenhagen  in  Lon- 
don. But  the  calm  dignity  of  the  new  minister,  who 
convinced  his  hearers  that  he  was  the  called  pastor, 
soon  indicated  that  the  time  of  Zinzendorf's  control 
of  the  situation  was  terminated.  Shortly  afterwards 
(about  New  Year,  1743)  Zinzendorf  returned  to 
Europe.  ^* 


^»In  Dr.  W.  Germann's  "Autobiography"  we  have  the  questioning 
of  Muhlenberg  before  Zinzendorf  and  his  followers.  These  questions 
and  replies  explain  to  us  the  decided  antagonism  of  Muhlenberg 
to  Zinzendorf  and  his  adherents. 


^    4/  MUHLENBKRG    AND    HIS    WORK.  63 

2.     Muhlenberg   as   a   Missionary.     We   can   only 
touch  upon  his  sclf-sacrilicinc;-  and  far-reaching  activ- 
ity as  a  missionary.  The  matter  has  been  treated  more 
fully  by  Jacobs  and  Graebner.     There  was  not  much 
of  a   salary.     One  conj^re^ation  contributed  a  horse, 
another  nothing:,  and  a  third  barely  enoug-h  to  pay 
rent.      Muhlenberg's    meeting    place    at    Philadelphia 
was  a  carpenter  shop,  at  Providence  a  barn,  and  at 
New    Hanover    a    half-tinished    church.      Journeying 
over  almost   impassable   roads,  broken   in  places  by 
rivers    without   bridges,   he   was    not    infrequently    in 
danger  of   death.     For   Muhlenberg  did    not   confine, 
himself  to  the  three  congregations.     Sympathy  with 
the    orphaned    Lutherans    caused   him    to   make    mis- 
sionary journeys  in  every  direction.     In  this  way  he 
came  to  Germantown,  Tulpehoken,  Lancaster,  Fred- 
ericks, York,  etc.     At  these  places  he  gathered  those 
hungering  for  the  Word  in  open  fields.    The  services 
were    usually    of    long   duration.      First    the    children 
were  catechised ;  baptisms  followed ;  these  were  suc- 
ceeded by  a  sermon  and  finally  by  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Muhlenberg's  zeal  was  indefatigable.     Outside  of  the 
work     mentioned     he     undertook     the     building    of 
churches,  visited  the  scattered  families,  settled  con- 
troversies, reconciled  contending  parties  and  made  his 
influence  felt  in  every  direction.     Wherever  he  went, 
doors  were  opened  to  him.     He  possessed  in  an  ex- 
traordinary degree  the  grace  of  finding  "favor  with 
men."     With  a  bearing  marked  by  a  combination  of 
natural  dignity  and  genuine  Christian  humility,  there 
was  united  a  character  to  which  learning,  executive 
ability,  and  deep  piety  lent  an  irresistible  charm,  so 
that  he  was  gladlv  received  on  all  sides  as  leader. 


64  MUHLENBEilG   AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,- 

MUHLENBERG  AND   THE   FOUNDING  OF  THE  FIRST 
LUTHERAN  SYNOD. 

Annotation.  The  congregation  of  Tulpehoken,  men- 
tioned above  and  in  previous  chapters  (§  3,  6),  had  been 
handicapped  since  1734,  by  internal  confusion,  which  was 
not  terminated  until  under  the  guiding  hand  of  Muhlenberg 
it  resulted  in  a  solution  favorable  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 
While  it  is  not  our  intention  to  give  detailed  accounts  of 
any  one  congregation,  we  wish  to  make  an  exception  of 
this  church,  because  its  history  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the 
Lutheran  situation  at  the  time  of  Muhlenberg's  arrival.  In 
his  work,  "The  Lutheran  Church  in  Pennsjdvania",  Dr. 
Schmauk,  beginning  with  page  485,  devotes  no  less  than  90 
pages  to  the  description  of  this  picture.  The  story  is  char- 
acteristic of  American  church  life  and  typical  of  many 
localities  where  it  has  been  repeated  with  more  or  less 
variation. 

Conrad  Weiser,  Jun.  (§  3,  4),  who  came  into  this  vicinity 
from  the  Schoharie  Valley  (1729),  was  serving  as  "reader"  in 
a  church  recently  (1727)  built  by  the  settlers.  He  had 
received  his  religious  tendencies  through  the  literature  of 
Spener  and  Francke,  and  for  that  reason  did  not  readily 
assimilate  the  formal  churchmanship  of  Johann  Caspar 
Stoever  (§  3,  6),  who  also  had  come  into  the  neighborhood. 
In  behalf  of  the  congregation  Weiser  tried  to  secure  a  min- 
ister from  Halle  by  appealing  to  Ziegenhagen  (§  3,  8)  and 
Francke.  This  call  was  entrusted  to  the  care  of  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Leutbecker,  a  school  teacher  and  formerly  a 
tailor,  who  had  been  converted  under  Boehme,  Court- 
preacher  at  London,  and  had  been  sent  to  America  for 
missionary  purposes.  This  "worthy"  brother  soon  informed 
the  people  that  the  delegated  pastor  had  died  at  sea,  and 
he  succeeded  in  getting  himself  elected.  Weiser  suspected 
fraud,  but  the  majority  of  the  church  members  sided  with 
Leutbecker.  This  caused  Weiser  to  withdraw  (1732)  from 
the  congregation. 

Now  he  came  in  contact  with  Peter  Miller,  the  talented 
but  fanatical  Reformed  pastor  of  the  locality,  together  with 
whom  he  fell  under  the  spell  of  the  eccentric  Sabbatarian 


§    4.'  MUHLENBE,.<G    AND    iriS    WOKK.  65 

Baptist  preachers  of  Ephrata.  He  was  rebaptizcd  by  Beis- 
sel,  moved  into  seclusion,  burned  Luther's  Catechism  and 
other  religious  books  that  had  hitherto  been  his  guide,  and 
became  religioush-  unl)alanced.  Meanwhile  the  Lutheran 
congregation  of  Tulpehoken  was  contaminated  by  the  influ- 
ence of  Ephrata.  Soon,  however,  a  reaction  set  in  among 
the  Lutheran  converts.  Weiser  emerged  from  his  seclusion 
and  entered  upon  his  well  known   political  career   (§  3,  4). 

The  opponents  of  Leutbecker  now  extended  a  call  to 
Johann  Caspar  Stoever,  who  had  gained  a  certain  influence 
in  this  neighborhood  by  performing  ministerial  acts  which 
Leutbecker  had  declined.  Thus  the  name  of  Stoever  is 
closely  interwoven  with  the  troubles  in  Tulpehoken,  which 
extended  from  1735  to  1743.  Stoever  first  tried  to  get  pos- 
session of  the  church  building.  But  the  opposition  put  a 
lock  on  the  door.  Stoever's  followers  broke  the  lock,  and 
eventually  forced  the  Leutbecker  faction  to  hold  services  in 
the  parsonage.  The  question  of  property  rights  over- 
shadowed all  others.  Discovering  that  the  transaction  of 
business,  dating  back  to  the  Indians,  did  not  convey  a  clear 
title  to  his  people,  Leutbecker  legalized  his  claims,  and 
attached  to  the  church  door  a  legally  protected  lock.  But 
Stoever's  followers  sawed  a  hole  through  the  wooden  wall 
of  the  building,  and  went  in  and  held  a  communion  service. 
Leutbecker's  life  was  threatened,  and  so  his  parsonage  was 
guarded  day  and  night.  He  died  in  1739.  The  funeral  serv- 
ice was  conducted  by  the  Moravian  Bishop  Spangenberg. 
who  had  been  in  Pennsylvania  for  two  years  and  had  occa- 
sionally visited  at  Tulpehoken. 

At  this  juncture  Conrad  Weiser  stepped  into  the  fore- 
ground. He  had  outgrown  his  Ephrata  follies,  and  was  now 
not  only  engaged  in  practical  work,  but  was  an  office- 
holder of  some  importance.  He  aimed  to  unite  the  warring 
factions.  He  went  to  Germantown  and  induced  Zinzendorf, 
who  had  just  arrived  and  was  holding  his  first  conference 
(1742;  §  3.  8),  to  come  to  Tulpehoken.  The  Count  preached 
a  sermon  on  the  second  Article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  in 
which  he  proved  that  he  was  a  good  Lutheran.  Upon  leav- 
ing, he  promised  to  secure  for  them  a  pastor  from  Halle, 
and  received  from  the  congregation  papers  containing  a 
6 


66  MUHLENBERG   AND    HIS   WORK.  §    4," 

formal  call.  It  was  agreed  that  Pastor  Buettner,  who  had 
just  been  ordained  by  Zinzendorf,  should  serve  in  the 
interim  and  without  any  salary.  Buettner  preached  his 
first  sermon  on  the  subject  of  "Peace",  but  six  weeks  had 
hardly  elapsed,  when  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Stoevcr  asking 
him  who  had  ordained  him,  before  whom  he  had  passed  his 
examinations,  whether  those  who  ordained  him  had  au- 
thority to  do  so  and  whether  he  had  any  right  to  organize 
a  church  council.  Soon  thereafter  Zinzendorf  held  "a  re- 
ligious conference  of  the  children  of  God"  at  Philadelphia, 
appointing  himself,  Buettner,  Pyrlaeus  and  Bryzelius  as 
"the  consistory  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Pennsylvania". 
The  first  action  taken  by  this  body  was  the  suspension 
of  Johann  Caspar  Stoever,  who,  however,  continued  his 
work  without  interruption.  Stoever's  followers,  in  fact, 
built  a  new  church  that  was  to  be  Lutheran  in  principle, 
and  called  it  Christ  Church  (1743).  For  some  unknown  rea- 
son, Stoever  did  not  lay  the  corner-stone,  but  it  was  done 
by  a  certain  Valentin  Kraft.  The  latter  was  not  a  success, 
and  stayed  but  a  short  time. 

Not  long  after  this  corner-stone  laying,  Muhlenberg  en- 
tered the  field  and  exerted  his  helpful  and  organizing  influ- 
ence. He  came  to  Tulpehoken  in  1743,  visiting  at  the  home 
of  Weiser,  whose  daughter  he  married  two  years  later.  At 
Muhlenberg's  suggestion  the  congregation  called  Tobias 
Wagner,  who  proved  a  failure,  and  afterwards  Nicholas 
Kurtz,  under  whom  all  storms  subsided. 

The  Leutbecker  faction,  served  by  Zinzendorf's  fol- 
lowers, also  built  a  new  church  (1744),  and  called  a  number 
of  ministers  in  rapid  succession.  But  its  membership 
diminished.  It  finally  died  when  their  Pastor  (Brueckner) 
declined  to  officiate  at  the  funeral  of  one  of  the  church- 
members,  and  would  not  open  the  doors  of  the  church  to 
Pastor  Kurtz.  This  action  caused  another  split  among  the 
members,  some  justifying  their  pastor,  others  condemning 
him. 

A  great  majority  remembered  that  they  were  Lutherans 
and  not  Moravians.  Conrad  Weiser  informed  them  that 
the  property  had  been  conveyed  to  the  Lutheran  Church, 
that  Zinzendorf  had  only  acquired  it  by  fraudulently  rep- 


§    4>*  MUHLENBERG  AND   PIIS   WORK.  67 

resenting  himself  as  a  Lutheran  and  tliat  whatever  part  of 
the  members  would  adhere  to  Lutheranism  were  entitled  to 
the  possession  of  the  building.  He  demanded  that  the  keys 
of  the  church  be  handed  over  to  the  Lutheran  element,  and 
when  his  request  was  refused,  changed  the  old  lock  for  a 
new  one.  This  ended  Moravian  activity  in  Tulpehoken. 
Kurtz  preached  in  both  churches,  which  were  about  two 
miles  apart. 

This  is  an  interesting  bit  of  local  church  history.  Dr. 
Schmauk,  in  his  "History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Penn- 
sylvania from  1638-1820,"  has  written  it  up  in  a  most  inter- 
esting manner  with  the  aid  of  much  historical  material  in 
the  form  of  letters  that  have  been  preserved.  They  show 
us  in  a  touching  way  all  the  particulars  of  these  troubles, 
the  movings  of  the  human  heart  in  its  struggle  for  the 
right,  and  also  its  errors  and  failings. 

We  also  gather  from  it  the  fact  that  Conrad  VVeiser,  after 
temporarj'  lapses,  returned  to  Lutheranism.  Those  are  in 
error  who  have  claimed  that  this  eminent  man  of  affairs, 
the  father-in-law  of  Muhlenberg,  died  as  a  member  of  some 
non-Lutheran   church. 

3.  The  "Hallische  Nachrichten"  (Halle  Reports), 
which  Muhlenberg  and  his  associates  sent  regularly 
to  the  fathers  in  Halle,  give  a  very  clear  view  of  their 
activity.  These  reports  \vere  printed  from  time  to 
time,  and  created  such  a  general  interest  that  a 
second  edition  was  soon  called  for.  It  was  published, 
together  with  valuable  geographical  and  historical  de- 
tails, by  Dr.  W.  J.  Mann.  Dr.  B.  M.  Schmucker  and 
Dr.  W.  Germann. 

This  volume  was  not  finished,  however.  Dr.  F.  VVischan 
editing  the  unfinished  part  without  annotations.  Dr.  C.  W. 
Schaefer's  English  translation  has  not  been  published  on 
account  of  financial  difficulties. 

On  reading  Muhlenberg's  articles  in  these  Halle 
Reports,    many    clergymen    in    the    Fatherland    were 


68  MUHLENBERJ   AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,*'* 

moved  to  cross  the  sea  to  become  missionaries 
among  the  Lutherans.  How  important  this  w^as  may 
be  gathered  from  the  statistics  on  the  rapid  increase 
of  immigration;  in  1749  twelve  thousand  German 
emigrants  arrived  at  Philadelphia.  The  supervision 
over  the  congregations  up  to  the  time  of  the  War  of 
Independence  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Francke  In- 
stitute at  Halle  and  of  Dr.  Ziegenhagen  of  London. 
They  endorsed  Muhlenberg's  propositions  and  gave 
general  advice. 

4.  Additional  workers  arrived  from  Halle,  notably 
Rev.  Peter  Brunnholtz  and  the  two  catechists,  Jo- 
hann  Nic.  Kurtz  and  Joh.  H.  Schaum.  An  agree- 
ment was  made  according  to  which  Brunnholtz  with 
Schaum  took  charge  of  the  congregations  in  Phila- 
delphia and  Germantown,  while  Muhlenberg,  with 
Kurtz  as  his  assistant,  confined  their  labors  to  the 
congregations  in  Providence  and  New  Hanover.  Other 
helpers  sent  from  Halle  were  Pastors  Handschuh 
and  Hartwig.  Later  we  find  the  names  of  Gerok 
(from  Wuertemberg),  Eager  (ancestor  to  Professor 
Baugher  of  Gettysburg),  Heinzelmann,  Schultze,  Hel- 
muth,  Schmidt,  Voigt,  Krug,  Weygardt,  Krauss, 
Schrenk,  etc. 

5.  The  Origin  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  To 
counteract  the  influence  of  Zinzendorf  and  his  fol- 
lowers and  also  to  get  rid  of  unworthy  ministers, 
who  sought  to  force  themselves  upon  the  congrega- 
tions, the  founding  of  an  ecclesiastical  organization 
was  becoming  more  and  more  necessary.  As  early  as 
1644  two  influential  laymen  of  Philadelphia,  Kock 
of  the  Sw^edish  and  Schleidorn  of  the  German  con- 
gregation, thought  of  organizing  a  Swedish-German 


§    4»''  MUHLENBEkG    AND    HIS    WORK.  69 

synod ;  but  this  attempt  failed  because  the  Swedish 
Pastor  Nyberg;  insisted  that  such  an  organization 
should  include  the  followers  of  Zinzendorf.  To  this 
Muhlenberg  objected.  However,  Aug.  26,  1748,  on  the 
occasion  of  a  double  celebration  (the  dedication  of 
the  newly  built  St.  Michael's  Church  and  the  ordina- 
tion of  Candidate  Kurtz)  six  clergymen  (Muhlenberg, 
Hartwig,  of  New  York,  Brunnholtz.  Handschuh, 
Kurtz  and  the  Swedish  Provost,  Sandin)  and  twenty- 
four  laymen,  representing  ten  Philadelphia  congre- 
gations, organized  the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  ^'*  We 
hnd,  indeed,  as  yet  no  formal  organization  and  no 
constitution,  but  from  this  time  on  those  who  com- 
posed the  synod  were  regarded  as  "United  Pastors" 
and  their  parishes  as  "United  Congregations"  -"  who 
held  seven  conferences  up  to  the  year  1754.  After 
that  we  notice  a  lull  in  the  synodical  activit}',  no  con- 
vention being  recorded  between  1754  and  1760.  One 
reason  for  this  was  probably  the  fact  that  Muhlen- 
berg, who  was  the  soul  of  all  these  enterprises,  was 
engaged  in  work  around  New  York  ( Raritan  and  New- 
York) ,  where  his  organizing  talents  were  required.  -' 


'"The  protocol  contains  an  explanation  why  other  ministers  sup- 
posed to  be  Lutherans  (Tob.  Wagner  and  J.  Caspar  Stoever)  were 
not  invited.  They  were  accused  of  having  called  the  ministers  of 
the  synod  pietists,  of  not  having  been  properly  called,  of  having 
refused  to  accept  the  common  liturgy,  and  of  not  being  responsible 
to   any    authority    for    their    conduct    in    the    ministry. 

*>  Not  until  1792  did  the  con.eregational  delegates  receive  the  right 
to  vote.  Up  to  that  time  the  clergymen  simply  received  reports 
and  applications  from  the  lay  delegates,  but  reserved  the  final 
decision   for  themselves.     At   this   the  laymen   took   no  offence. 

"  In  New  V'ork  City  he  served  an  old  Dutch  church,  which,  on 
account  of  the  language  question,  was  in  danger  of  disruption. 
Muhlenberg  preached  here  in  Dutch,  German  and  English.  At  this 
time  he  also  came  in  contact  with  Berkennieyer,  who,  however,  was 
not   desirous   of    having   fellowship   with   a   minister    from    Halle    (I    3,   4). 


70  MUHLENBERG   AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,*^ 

It  also  seems  that  the  founders  had  gotten  some- 
what discouraged.  Their  vision  grew  dim  in  the  pres- 
ence of  towering  tides  of  immigration  for  whose 
spiritual  welfare  Germany  did  but  little  and  whose 
future  was  endangered  by  ministerial  frauds. 

Provost  Dr.  Wrangel  (§  2)  caused  the  resumption 
of  synodical  work.  He  called  on  Muhlenberg,  and 
invited  him  to  take  part  in  a  Swedish  conference. 
Muhlenberg  accepted,  and  received  so  many  helpful 
suggestions  at  this  meeting  that  he  wrote  to  the 
different  ministers  (Sept.  24,  1760),  inviting  them  to 
attend  a  Pastoral  Conference  to  be  held  at  Provi- 
dence, Oct.  19th  and  20th.  We  should  not  underesti- 
mate this  conference,  for  it  signifies  the  revival  of 
synodical  interests  after  a  period  of  inactivity.  Even 
here  we  do  not  discover  any  kind  of  a  constitution ; 
but  we  note  that  a  President  is  chosen  from  year  to 
year.  We  find  the  name  "The  Annual  Ministerial  Con- 
ference of  the  United  Swedish  and  Lutheran  Min- 
isters." Indeed,  in  1781,  in  a  minute-book  of  that 
date,  we  find  the  text  of  a  constitution,  which  had  no 
doubt  existed  for  several  years.  This  constitution, 
which  has  served  as  a  prototype  for  so  many  synodical 
constitutions  of  later  times,  is  printed  by  Jacobs  on 
p,  261.  Here  the  name  of  the  synod  is  given  as  "The 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  of  North  Am- 
erica." Later  the  name  was  changed  into  "The  Ger- 
man Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Adjoining  States."  Not  before  1882  was 
the  word  German  dropped. 

6.  The  first  congregational  constitution  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America  is  also  the  gift  of  Muh- 
lenberg.    The    framing  of   this   constitution    was,   in 


§    4/  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  Jl 

fact,  a  matter  of  far-reaching  importance.     Dr.  Mann 
avers  that  if  Muhlenberg^  had  done  nothing  but  com- 
pose  this   constitution,   he   would  be   entitled   to   the 
lasting  gratitude   of   the   Lutheran   Church.     It   was 
used    by    the    ministers    who    organized    churches    in 
Pennsylvania    and    adjacent    states ;     it    served    as    a 
foundation  for  the  congregational  constitution  of  the 
Ceneral  Synod,  and  was  thus  the  basis  for  the  con- 
gregational   constitutions    of    all    synods    until    1840 
(cf.  §  35).     In  this  constitution   (see  Graebner.  484- 
493)    we   have   the   finished  product   of   twenty-eight 
years'  (1734-1762)  experience.    It  was  written  to  meet 
the  needs  of  St.  Michael's  Church,  Philadelphia,  and 
bore  the  marks  of  mature  study  and  observation.   Muh- 
lenberg incorporated  into  it,  not  only  what  he  had  per- 
sonally observed  as  a  guide  and  adviser  of  various 
congregations,  but  also  the  experiences  of  the  Swedish 
and  Dutch  Lutherans.     During  a  solemn  service  and 
after  fervent  prayer  it  was  submitted  to  the  people. 
/.     A   common   liturgry    to    be    used    by    all    min- 
isters had  already  been   thought  of  by  Muhlenberg 
and  his  co-workers  during  the  founding  of  the  first 
svnod  (1748).     This  order  of  service  was  submitted 
to   the   synod   in    1754   and    forwarded   to   Halle    for 
approval.    It  seems  to  have  been  drawn  from  a  num- 
ber of  Saxon  and  North-German  liturgies  which  were 
used  in  those  parts  of  Germany  where  Muhlenberg 
had  lived  and  worked.  ^'    The  revised  edition  of  this 
liturgA-,  A.  D.  1786  (See  Fritschel.  I.  178-187).  is  to 

=°  The  Lueneburg  Liturgy  (1643)  which  was  used  at  his  home 
in  Eimbeck;  the  Calenberg  service  (1569)  which  he  knew  at  Goet- 
tingen  during  his  university  days;  the  Brandenburcr-Magdeburg  ar- 
rangement of  1739  with  which  he  became  familiar  in  Halle;  and  the 
Saxon  order  of  service  of  1712  which  he  used  as  pastor  in  Grosshen- 
nersdorf. 


'J 2  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,^ 

be  considered  a  deterioration  from  the  standpoint  of 
Lutheran  liturgies. 

8.  Doctrinal  Views  of  Muhlenberg  and  his  Co- 
workers. Dr.  Jacobs  has  correctly  stated  the  case 
when  he  says  that  the  pietistic  tendencies  of  these 
men  gave  a  certain  color  to  their  Lutheranism,  but 
did  not  displace  it.  They  were  true  Lutherans  in 
preaching  and  practice.  Says  Dr.  Mann:  "Their 
Lutheranism  did  not  differ  from  the  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy of  the  preceding  period,  in  the  matter  of  doc- 
trine, but  to  an  extent  in  the  manner  of  applying  it. 
It  was  orthodoxy  practically  vitalized.  They  were 
less  polemical  and  theoretical.  They  actualized  their 
own  Lutheran  convictions  through  a  noble,  exemplary 
life  and  service.  Their  pietism  was  truly  Lutheran 
piety,  a  w^arm-hearted,  devout,  active,  practical  Lu- 
theranism." (Dr.  W.  J.  Mann's  "Theses  on  the  Lu- 
theranism of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  in  this 
Country,"  First  Free  Lutheran  Diet,  p.  281-283). 
There  was  no  departing  from  Lutheran  standards. 
That  is  proved  by  their  w^hole  activity  as  recorded 
in  the  "Hallische  Nachrichten."  To  his  accusers 
Muhlenberg  truthfully  replied:  "I  ask  Satan  and  all 
his  lying  spirits  to  prove  anything  against  me  which 
is  not  in  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  the  apostles 
or  of  our  Symbolical  Books.  I  have  stated  frequently 
that  there  is  neither  fault  nor  error  nor  any  kind  of 
defect  in  our  evangelical  doctrines,  founded  on  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets  and  the  apostles,  and  set 
forth  in  our  Symbolical  Books."  It  is  true  that  they 
exchanged  pulpits  with  ministers  of  the  denomina- 
tions. Muhlenberg  at  times  preached  for  the  Epis- 
copalians,  and   in   turn   invited   the   Episcopal   pastor 


§    4,*  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  73 

Peters.  Whitelield,  the  evangelist,  and  the  Reformed 
Pastor  Schlatter  to  occupy  his  pulpit.  At  Phila- 
delphia, he  preached  the  funeral  sermon  for  the  Re- 
formed Pastor  Steiner.  Whitelield  was  invited  to  the 
assembled  Ministerium  of  Philadelphia  (1763)  and 
took  part  in  their  service.  At  the  consecration  of 
Zion's  Lutheran  Church  of  Philadelphia  the  whole 
non-Lutheran  clergy  of  that  city  was  invited.  Epis- 
copal ministers  delivered  addresses,  and  Muhlenberg 
thanked  them  publicly  for  the  part  they  had  taken. 
But  all  of  this,  says  Jacobs,  is  no  evidence  that  these 
men  had  unionistic  tendencies.  Their  uncompromis- 
ing attitude  toward  Zinzendorf  and  his  followers 
clearly  shows  their  fundamental  opposition  to  a  church 
union  based  on  doctrinal  indift'erentism.  They  dis- 
liked Zinzendorf,  not  merely  on  account  of  his  church 
politics,  but  also  because  of  the  unionistic  principles 
which  he  openly  proclaimed,  if  they  associated  with 
members  of  other  churches,  they  did  so  because  they 
admired  loyalty  of  each  to  their  respective  Confes- 
sions and  wished  to  emphasize  the  fundamental  truths 
they  hekl  in  common.  "However,  they  never  denied 
their  confessional  point  of  view.  Everywhere  and 
at  all  times  they  taught  and  preached  as  true  Lu- 
therans. They  never  for  friendship's  sake  would  be 
silent  concerning  a  Lutheran  doctrine  or  deny  the  full 
consequences  of  the  teachings  of  their  confessions."-'' 

^  See  Gottfried  Fritschcl,  "Die  Praxis  tier  Vacter  unci  CIruender 
der  Lutherischcn  Kirche  Amerikas  bei  der  Verwaltung  des  heiligcii 
Abendmalils,"  Brobst's  Monatshefte,  XI,  12.  Muhlenberg  had  solemnly 
pledged  himself  in  his  ordination  vow  before  the  theological  faculty 
of  the  university  of  Leipzig,  Aug.  24,  1739,  which  committed  to  him 
the  office  of  "teaching  the  Gospel  and  administering  the  Sacra- 
ments according  to  the  rule  given  in  the  writinj-'S  of  the  Prophets 
and   Apostles,    the    sum   of   which    is   contained   in   these   three    symbols, 


74  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,^ 

A  union  with  the  Episcopalians  seems,  it  is  true, 
to  have  been  considered.  Not  only  Swedish  and  Ger- 
man Lutherans,  but  the  Episcopalians  sought  such  a 
union.  Muhlenberg  and  Wrangel  believed  that  there 
were  no  serious  differences  of  doctrine.  We  cannot 
account  for  this  strange  delusion,  but  it  is  partly  ex- 
plained by  the  cordial  relationship  that  had  been  sus- 
tained by  the  Episcopalians  and  partly  by  the  fact 
that  the  royal  family  of  England  was  Lutheran  (§ 
3,  7)  and  that  the  only  two  recognized  churches  of 
England  were  the  Lutheran  and  the  Episcopalian. 
These  considerations  probably  clouded  the  view  of 
Muhlenberg  and  his  co-workers  concerning  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  -' 

It  must  be  remembered  also  that  Lutheran  min- 
isters frequently  went  to  London  to  receive  the  Epis- 


the  Apostolic,  Nicene  and  Athanasian,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession 
laid  before  Emperor  Charles  V.,  A.  D.  1530,  in  the  Apology  of  the 
same,  in  Dr.  Luther's  Large  and  Small  Catechisms,  in  the  Articles 
subscribed  to  in  the  Smalcald  Convention,  and  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord.  He  solemnly  promised  that  he  would  propose  to  his  hearers 
what  would  be  conformed  and  consentient  to  these  writings  and  that 
he  would  never  depart  from  the  sense  which  they  give."  (Dr.  W.  J. 
Mann,  "The  Conservatism  of  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg"  in  Lu- 
theran Church  Review,   January,  1888.) 

^  Rudman,  the  Swede,  of  whom  we  read  in  §§  1  and  2  and  who 
was  considered  a  more  consistent  Lutheran,  served  the  Episcopalians 
in  Philadelphia.  Bjoerk  and  Sandel,  Swedish  ministers,  exchanged 
pulpits  with  the  Episcopalians.  An  explanation  of  this  is  oflfered  by 
Provost  Sandel  (see  Graebner,  p.  118):  "Although  there  is  a  slight 
difference  between  them  and  us  regarding  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
Bishop  would  not  allow  this  difference  to  interfere  with  the  seneral 
peace.  We  cannot  be  drawn  into  any  argument.  Neither  do  we  touch 
upon  these  matters  when  we  preach  to  them,  nor  do  they  try  to  con- 
vert our  people  to  their  belief.  We  call  each  other  brethren  and  live 
peaceably  together.  They  control  the  government;  we  are  under  them; 
it  is  sufficient  that  they  are  such  pleasant  associates,  and  that  they 
make  no  attempt  to  proselyte  among  our  people.  They  call  our  church 
'the  sister  Church  of  the  Church  of  England.'  So  we  live  fraternally 
together.     May   God  continue   to  grant   this." 


§    4."  MUHLENBERG    AND    HIS    WORK.  75 

copal  ordination  (for  instance  Peter,  oldest  son  of 
Muhlenberg,  who  later  was  Major  General  of  the 
army).  This,  however,  was  not  done  because  the 
Episcopal  ordination  was  regarded  by  them  as  the 
only  true  ordination,  but  because  they  were  doing 
work  in  the  Southern  States  where  only  the  Episcopal 
ordination  was  recognized  by  the  law*. 

9.  At  tb.c  time  of  Muhlenberg's  Death  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  included  in  round  numbers  forty  min- 
isters. As  he  was  kept  confined  to  his  house  at  the 
Trappe  (Providence;  on  account  of  physical  weakness, 
he  held  a  service  in  his  own  house  every  Sunday 
wnth  his  family.  His  sickness  developed  into  dropsy, 
and  during  the  last  weeks  he  had  days  of  great  suf- 
fering. He  died  on  Oct.  7,  1787,  with  this  prayer  on 
his  lips :  ":Mach  End,  O  Herr,  mach  Ende,"  etc.  All 
the  congregations  of  the  synod  held  memorial  ser- 
vices in  his  honor,  and  called  to  mind  the  blessings 
which  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  had  received 
from  God  through  this  prince  in  Israel.  A  sermon 
was  delivered  in  New  York  by  Dr.  Kunze,  which  was 
printed  by  order  of  the  church  council  and  distributed 
among  the  members  of  the  congregation.  The  same 
was  done  with  a  sermon  delivered  at  Philadelphia  by 
Dr.  Helmuth  in  mem.ory  of  the  deceased.  The  grave 
of  Muhlenberg  is  near  the  historic  church  of  New- 
Providence   <  Trappe). 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter  we  ask  :  Why 
was  Muhlenberg  superior  to  his  cn-workers  and  why 
is  he  generally  named  the  Patriarch  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  America?  The  answer  is  found  in  his 
favorite  motto:  "Ecclesia  plantanda"  (a  church  must 
be   planted).     While   other   ministers   were   pre-emi- 


76  mUHLENBERG   AND    HIS    WORK.  §    4,® 

nently  parochial  clergymen  and  specialized  in  work 
for  the  narrower  circle,  Muhlenberg's  eye  took  in 
the  whole  Lutheran  mission  field  of  America,  and  he 
was  conscious  of  laying  the  foundations  for  a  great 
future.  In  this  sense  he  created  the  first  congrega- 
tional constitution  and  the  first  liturgy.  For  this  task 
he  was  well  endowed  and  singularly  fitted.  He  pos- 
sessed a  thorough  education,  was  a  man  of  large 
horizons,  eminently  practical,  a  man  of  fine  tact.  With 
all  his  energy  he  was  moderate,  and  possessed  talents 
for  organization  such  as  are  only  found  in  great  men. 
And  all  these  natural  gifts  were  consecrated  by  a  liv- 
ing faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  a  faith  that  was  sound  to 
the  core. 

To  sum  up:  Muhlenberg  was  a  born  leader;  the 
gift  of  Almighty  God  to  the  Lutheran  Church  of 
America  at  a  time  when  organization  was  the  su- 
preme need  of  the  hour  and  the  Church  was  in  need 
of  such  a  leader.  History  bears  witness  that  he  nobly 
fulfilled  his  mission  —  the  organization  of  individual 
congregations  into  the  larger  Church.  The  further 
development  of  his  work  and  the  task  of  extending  his 
plan,  together  with  the  problems  arising  from  such  a 
task,  pertain  to  another  period  of  this  history. 


CHAPTER  III. 

FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MUHLENBERG'S 
ORGANIZATION. 


§  5.     Origin  of  Other  Synods. 

1.  The  New  York  Ministerium.  Not  until  the 
Dutch  congregations  located  on  the  banks  of  the 
Hudson  were  a  hundred  years  old  and  the  Palatinate 
churches  had  existed  for  half  a  century,  do  we  hear 
of  any  synod  in  the  territory  of  New  York.  This 
may  be  partly  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the 
stream  of  German  immigration  had  been  diverted 
from  New  York  to  Pennsylvania  (§  3,  6),  and  partly 
by  the  exclusive  tendencies  of  the  Berkenmeyer  cir- 
cle, which  would  not  enter  into  fellowship  with  the 
missionaries  from  Halle  (§  3,  4).  At  last,  in  the 
year  1763.  the  Rev.  F.  A.  C.  Muhlenberg,  a  son  of 
the  patriarch,  invited  a  number  of  clergymen  and 
representatives  of  different  congregations  to  attend 
a  meeting  in  the  German  Lutheran  Christ  Church  of 
New  York  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  second 
synod.  The  matter,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have 
succeeded,  for  no  synodical  gathering  is  on  record 
until  1786.  when,  at  the  instance  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Kunze,^''  and  the  occasion  of  a  Lutheran  Church  dedi- 


"  Dr.  Joh.  Christoph  Kunze  stucrted  theology  at  Leipzig,  and 
taught  for  several  years  in  a  school  of  higher  learning;  together 
with  two  sons  of  Muhlenberg  who  had  been  trained  at  Halle,  he 
came  to  America  in  1770.  He  married  Muhlenberg's  daughter,  be- 
came    a     second     preacher    of     St.     Michael's,     Philadelphia,     and     also 

(77) 


yS  ORIGIN    OF   OTHER   SYNODS.  §    5,^'^'* 

cation  at  Albany,  the  First  Conference  attended  by 
three    ministers    and   their   congregational   delegates 

was  held.  Eight  pastors  who  were  engaged  in  work 
in  this  territory  did  not  come.  Before  another  meet- 
ing was  called  six  years  elapsed.  But  after  that,  de- 
velopments were  more  noticeable.  Another  decade 
gives  us  a  synod  consisting  of  thirteen  ministers. 
Dr.  Kunze,  in  whom  survived  the  spirit  of  Muhlen- 
berg, died  in  1807,  and  the  New  York  Ministerium 
was  controlled  for  twenty  years  by  the  eminently 
gifted,  though  rationalistic  Dr.  Quitman  (§  6,  3), 
under  whose  leadership  it  took  part  in  the  founding 
of  the  General  Synod. 

2.  The  North  Carolina  Synod,  mother  of  all  the 
Southern  synods,  was  organized  by  four  clergymen 
(C.  A.  G.  Storch  and  Paul  Henkel  among  them)  and 
fourteen  lay  delegates  at  Salisbury,  N.  C,  in  1803. 
O'hcr  congregations  of  North  Carolina  soon  united 
with  them.  Three  came  in  1810,  nine  from  Ten- 
nessee in  1811,  and  five  from  Virginia  in  1812. 
From  1810  on,  this  synod  appointed  yearly  a  mis- 
sionary who  was  to  look  after  newly  arriving  immi- 
grants. These  missionaries  visited  North  Carolina, 
Virginia,  Tennessee,  South  Carolina  and  even  came 
to  Ohio.  All  this  took  place  before  the  rupture  which 
resulted  in  the  organization  of  the  Synod  of  Ten- 
nessee (§  5,  5). 

3.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  which  already  ex- 
isted in  1820  when  the  question  of  a  General  Synod 

Professor  of  Oriental  languages  in  the  newly  founded  university  of 
Pennsylvania.  In  1783  he  accepted  a  call  to  a  Lutheran  Church  in 
New  York  in  the  hope  that  he  might  arrange  a  course  for  theo- 
logical students  in  connection  with  Columbia  College.  This  hope 
failed    on    account    of    the    war. 


^    5,*'''  ORIGIN    OF   OTHER    SYNODS.  79 

was  being  agitated,  had  its  beginning  as  far  back 
as  1812.  In  that  year  we  hear  of  a  number  of  Ohir> 
pastors  who  were  then  still  members  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod.  (Rev.  Paul  Henkel  had  traversed, 
as  itinerant  preacher,  the  whole  Ohio  territory  in  a 
two-wheeled  cart.)  Without  receiving  the  requested 
permission  from  the  mother-synod,  these  fourteen 
ministers  organized  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  which 
is  to-day  so  influential,  on  the  14th  of  September. 
1818.  at  Somerset,  Ohio.     (See  also  §  28.) 

4.  The  Synod  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  was  or- 
ganized Oct.  11,  1820,  with  the  consent  of  the  mother- 
synod  of  Pennsylvania.  Among  the  ten  clergy^men 
of  which  it  consisted  we  mention  Drs.  Dan.  Kurtz, 
D.  F.  SchaefTer  and  Chas.  P.  Krauth,  Sen. 

5.  The  Tennessee  Synod  was  founded  at  Cove 
Creek,  Tenn.,  July  17,  1820.  It  was  a  branch  of 
the  Synod  of  North  Carolina.  The  founders  of  this 
organization  (among  whom  were  Philip  and  Daniel 
Henkel,  sens  of  Paul  Henkel),  could  not  agree  with 
their  synodical  brethren  concerning  the  question  of 
the  licensing  of  clergymen.  They  also  objected 
strenuously  to  the  forming  of  a  General  Synod,  a 
plan  which  was  warmly  advocated  by  the  Synod  of 
North  Carolina.  For  a  long  time  afterwards  the 
synod  of  Tennessee  was  ai^tagonistic  to  the  General 
Synod.  It  distinguished  itself  by  being  the  only 
synod  at  that  time  which  stood  squarely  on  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  Among  its  prominent  mem- 
bers were  the  Henkels,  the  Stierwalds  and  the  Foxes. 

Annotation.  As  branch  si'nods  of  the  Synod  of  Ten- 
nessee, which  was  never  large,  we  should  name:  1.  The 
Synod  of  Indiana  (now  known  as  the  Chicago  Synod  of  the 


8o  '  ORIGIN    OF   OTHER    SYNODS.  §    5,* 

General  Council,  §  17,  7);  2.  The  HoUton  Synod  (§  14,  1, 
3)  ;    3.   The  English  Conference  of  the  Missouri  Synod.    The 

Tennessee  Synod  is  now  a  part  of  the  United  Synod  of  the 
South,  together  with  its  former  antagonist,  the  synod  of 
North  Carolina. 

When  in  October,  1820,  the  matter  of  a  General 
Synod  was  being  discussed,  there  existed  only  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  (Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania) 
and  those  just  mentioned,  six  altogether.  At  that 
time  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  had  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  clerg^anen  and  nine  hundred 
congregations,  divided  as  follows  : 

Clergymen.  Communicants. 

Pennsylvania.  74     (278  congregations)  24,794 

New  York,  20  3,114 

Maryland,  Va.,  22  4,935 

North  Carolina.  19  1.358 

Ohio  had  twenty-six  clergymen,  Tennessee  six  pas- 
tors and  four  deacons.  Since  these  two  synods  were 
not  a  part  of  the  General  Synod  (Ev.  Rev.  V,  245),-^ 
we  have  no  further  statistics. 


§  6.     Characteristics  of  This  Period. 

1.  Lack  of  Clergymen.  The  demand  for  theo- 
logical seminaries  was  keenly  felt.  Dr.  Kunze  and 
his  successor  Dr.  Helmuth,  pastors  of  St.  Michael's, 
served  as  professors  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 

and  in  this  way  prepared  some  young  men   for  the 
ministry,  notably  G.  Lochman,  Chr.  Endress,  Dav.  F. 

*•  According  to  statistics  submitted  to  the  second  convention  of 
the    General    Synod    at    Fredericksburg,    Md.,    in    1823. 


§    6/  CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THIS    I'EKIOD.  8l 

Schaeft'er   and   S.   S.    Schmucker.  —  Franklin  College 

of  Lancaster,  Pa.,  was  founded  at  the  suggestion  of 
Benjamin  Franklin  in  1787.  Here  Reformed  and  Lu- 
theran clergymen  collaborated,  each  trying  to  secure 
candidates  for  the  ministry.  The  Lutheran  Church, 
however,  succeeded  in  getting  but  few,  among  whom 
we  mention  H.  A.  Muhlenberg  and  Ben.  Keller.  -' 
Quite  a  number  of  Lutheran  students  attended  the 
seminaries  of  other  denominations.  Princeton  (Re- 
formed) was  particularly  popular.  —  Haurtvack  Sem- 
inary,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  the  corner-stone 
of  which  was  laid  in  1815.  was  founded  by  Hartwick, 
a  Lutheran  pastor  who,  being  unmarried,  left  his 
large  estate  (consisting  in  valuable  lands)  to  this 
institution.  Its  first  president  was  Dr.  E.  Hazelius, 
under  whom  many  able  Lutheran  ministers  received 
their  training.  These  men.  however,  from  the  view- 
point of  their  grasp  of  the  Lutheran  confessions, 
were  children  of  the  age. 

Prof.  Ernst  Ludwig  Hazelius  (born  at  Xeusalz  in  1777, 
died  in  1853)  was  a  descendant  of  the  court-preacher  of  the 
same  name.  His  father  was  a  Moravian,  and  he  received 
his  training  at  Barby  and  Xiesky.  In  1800  he  was  called 
to  the  Moravian  seminary  of  Nazareth,  Pa.  But  his  Lu- 
theran tendencies  prevailed,  and  he  accepted  the  pastorate 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  New  Jersey.  He  became  pro- 
fessor at  Hartwick  Seminary  (1815) ;  professor  of  church 
history  at  Gettysburg  (1830) ;  professor  in  the  seminary  of 
the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  (1833).  See  the  article  of  Dr. 
F.  G.  Gotwald  in  January-  issue  of  Lutheran  Quarterly,  1916. 


"Franklin  College  and  the  many  churches  erected  by  the  com- 
mon enterprise  of  both  Reformed  and  Lutheran  people  furnish  an 
illustration  of  the  untonistic  tendencies  then  prevalent.  Plain  church 
members  had  an  idea  that  there  was  really  no  diflFerence  except 
that  some  opened  the  Lord's  prayer  with  "Unser  Vater,"  others  with 
"Vater   unser."     Neve,   Kurzgefasste   Geschichte. 


82  CHARACTERISTICS   OF   THIS    PERIOD.  §    6." 

2.  The  language  question  (for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  American  Lutheranism)  reached  a 
critical  stage  during  this  period.  Muhlenberg,  Ber- 
kenmeyer  and  other  German  and  Swedish  pastors 
had  hitherto  preached  in  the  English  tongue  without 
meeting  serious  opposition,  but  now  the  situation 
had  changed.  The  Church  of  St.  Michael's,  Phila- 
delphia, furnished  the  arena  for  the  combatants.  Led 
by  General  Peter  Muhlenberg,  the  English  part  of  the 
congregation  demanded  that  an  English  speaking  pas- 
tor be  called  to  supplement  the  work  of  the  two 
German  ministers  (Ilelmuth  and  Schmidt).  How- 
ever, at  the  annual  meeting  in  1806,  at  which  four- 
teen hundred  votes  were  cast,  the  German  party  won, 
with  a  plurality  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  votes. 
The  English  party  left  and  founded  St.  John's  Church. 
Ten  years  afterwards  another  controversy  on  the 
same  subject,  which  was  even  carried  into  the  secular 
courts,  caused  another  emigration  of  members  and 
the  subsequent  founding  of  the  English  Lutheran  St. 
Matthew's  congregation.  Similar  controversies  took 
place  in  other  churches,  especially  in  New  York.  Dur- 
ing this  time  in  congregational  meetings  such  state- 
ments as  the  following  were  put  on  record :  "As 
long  as  the  grass  grows  green  and  as  long  as  the 
water  will  not  run  up  hill,  this  is  to  remain  a  German 
speaking  congregation."  And  again:  "Even  in  Para- 
dise the  Lord  spoke  to  Adam  in  German,  for  do  we 
not  read  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis  :  'The  Lord 
God  called  unto  Adam  and  said  unto  him,  "Wo  bist 
du?"  (Where  art  thou?).'"  While  such  remarks  are 
not  to  be  taken  too  seriously,  they  indicate  the  blind 


§    6,"  LllAKACTER[STlCS    OF    THJS    IM-.KIOD.  83 

fsmaticisin  displayed  during-  the  discussion.  The 
(U'lnian-  were  .^lill  in  the  majority  and  they  gen- 
erally carried  their  point,  i)ut  hundreds  of  young 
peojjle  drifted  into  the  churches  of  the  surrounding 
denominations,  a  fact  which  explains  the  origin  of 
some  of  the  strongest  Methodist,  Presbyterian  and 
ICpiscopal  congregations  of  present  times. 

3.  Rationalistic  Influences.  Says  Dr.  Spaeth 
(llauck's  R.  E.  XIV,  191  j  ;  "The  reHgious  life  of 
America,  like  that  of  Europe,  was  in  a  stage  of  de- 
cadence at  the  end  of  the  18th  and  at  the  beginning 
of  the  19th  century.  The  French  Revolution  and  the 
American  War  of  Independence  had  the  immediate 
effect  of  shattering  religious  and  political  ideals.  The 
close  alliance  between  France  and  the  new  American 
republic  opened  the  door  for  a  vast  influx  of  French 
infidel  literature,  and  the  complaint  of  decaying  faith 
was  heard  on  all  sides."  Muhlenberg  and  his  co- 
workers had  feared  this  development.  They  had 
watched  the  theological  discussions  at  Halle,  and 
drew  the  ominous  conclusion  that  Rationalism  would 
sooner  or  later  degrade  the  pulpits  of  America.  Their 
fear  was  justified.  At  the  end  of  the  18th  century 
Unitarian  congregations  were  founded  at  Boston  b\ 
Socinian  fugitives  from  England.  Their  influence 
was  soon  extended,  particularly  among  the  Congre- 
gationalists.  Germany,  too,  contributed  its  sb.are  of 
Rationalism.  Ministers  arriving  from  Halle  had 
been  trained  by  professors  of  the  new  school  of  the- 
ology. After  the  death  of  Dr.  Kunze  ri807)  Dr.  F. 
H.  Quitman,  of  Rhinebeck,  N.  Y..  a  disciple  of  Semler, 
was  made  president  of  the  New  York  Ministerium.  and 


84  CHARACTERISTICS   OF   THIS    PERIOD.  §    6,^ 

held  that  office  for  twenty-one  years.  A  man  of 
commanding  personality,  equally  eloquent  in  English 
and  German,  and  intellectually  superior  to  his  col- 
leagues, he  was  bound  to  have  a  far-reaching  in- 
fluence. In  behalf  of  the  synod  he  wrote  a  catechism 
full  of  rationalistic  doctrines  (1812)  and  an  English 
liturgy  and  hymnal  in  which  God  was  addressed  as 
"the  great  Father  of  the  universe."  All  were  based 
upon  the  speech  of  the  older  Rationalism  (Rational- 
ismus  Vulgaris),  in  which  the  "higher  reason  of 
Christianity"  was  substituted  for  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
the  "laxity  of  modern  life"  for  the  sinful  heart ; 
"the  beginning  of  nobler  impulses"  for  regeneration ; 
"the  elevation  of  humanity"  for  Christ's  ascension, 
and  "corporate  immortality"  for  personal  immortality. 
It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  the  influences  of 
German  Rationalism  were  mostly  confined  to  English- 
speaking  congregations.  German  churches  adhering 
to  Luther's  catechism  generally  escaped.  Those  who 
would  form  a  fair  judgment  of  the  linguistic  controver- 
sies mentioned  above  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  many  church-members  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  fought  as  they  did  because  to  them  the  Ger- 
man language  was  the  bulweurk  behind  which  they 
sought  refuge  against  the  dangers  of  Rationalism. 
4.  These  controlling  rationalistic  influences  were 
bound  to  shatter  confessional  convictions.  Some  do 
not  understand  why  so  much  emphasis  is  placed  in 
the  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  on 
firm  adherence  to  the  confession  of  faith,  and  why 
from  this  viewpoint  we  measure  success  and  failure ; 
but  it  must  ever  be  remembered  that  the  American 


§    6/  CHARACTERISTICS   OF   THIS    PERIOD.  85 

Lutheran  Church   is   a  free  Church,  i.   e.,   not   under 
State  authority.     "As  a  free  church  she  must  be  pre- 
eminently   a    confessional    Church.      For    those    who 
unite    with    a    congregation    without    compulsion    or 
enter   into   any   relationship   with   synods,   must    first 
of  all   have  a   very   clear   idea   what  is   the   common 
basis  of  their  faith."     Confessional  convictions  grew 
dim,  and   the   foundation   laid  by   Muhlenberg  began 
to   crumble.      In    1792   the    constitution   of   the    Min- 
isterium  of   Penns}'lvania   was   changed,  and  all   ref- 
erences to  the  Lutheran  Confession  eliminated.     We 
notice  a  tendency  to  obscure  points  of  difference  be- 
tween Lutheranism  and  Episcopalianism.     When  this 
tendency  was  previously  recorded  (§  4,  8;    §  5,  2),  it 
appeared  in  a  more  or  less  harmless  character,  but 
a   resolution  passed   by  the  New  York   Ministerium 
in  1797  bodes  ill  for  the  Lutheran  Church:    "Because 
of  the  close  relation  between  the  Episcopal  and  Lu- 
theran   churches    and    because    of    the    similarity    of 
doctrine  and  discipline,  the  consistory  will  not  recog- 
nize any  newly  organized   English   Lutheran   church 
in  places  where  the  members   can  commune   in  the 
Episcopal  fold."    Fortunately  this  resolution  was  can- 
celled  in    1804.     The   Pennsylvania   Synod  attempted 
a  union  with  the  Reformed  Church.     In  this  connec- 
tion we  call  attention  to  §  6.  1  :  also  to  Franklin  Col- 
lege,  which    was    supported   by    Lutherans    and    Re- 
formed, and  to  the  many  churches  built  by  and  used 
by  both. 

It  was  a  time  when  the  very  existence  of  Lu- 
theranism was  at  stake.  The  general  confusion 
threatened  to  lead  its  members  into  other  denomina- 


86  CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THIS    PERIOD.  §    6,* 

tions.  Far-seeing  men  recognized  that  these  dangers 
could  be  met  only  by  special  efforts.  Lutheran  lit- 
erature and  a  thoroughly  trained  ministry  —  these 
were  the  immediate  needs  of  the  hour.  To  face  the 
crisis  successfully  the  different  synods  would  have 
to  co-operate. 


THE  THIRD  PERIOD. 


SYNODS  ORGANIZED  INTO  LARGER  BODIES. 

THE  founding  of  the  Church  ("ecclesia  plantanda") 
was  Muhlenberg's  great  aim.  When  he  closed  his 
eyes,  he  had  reached  the  goal.  Speaking  humanly, 
he  had  established  the  Lutheran  Church.  He  had 
been  a  chosen  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God.  But  new 
problems  had  now  arisen.  The  transplanted  seed  required 
care  in  order  to  produce  fruit.  An  ever  extending  territory' 
and  a  gradual  growth  necessitated  the  founding  of  new 
synods.  Now  there  was  danger  that  the  church  formed  by 
Muhlenberg  would  be  split  up  into  conferences  and  associa- 
tions, with  no  bond  of  union  among  them.  The  transition 
of  a  large  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  into  the  English 
and  many  movements  of  that  day  in  the  social  and  religious 
life  of  the  American  people,  put  the  Lutheran  Church  to  a 
severe  test.  It  was  essential  that  there  should  be  a  bond 
of  union  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  the  scattered  threads 
of  the  Church.  Such  a  bond  of  union  was  to  be  definite 
enough  to  insure  organic  connection,  but  also  elastic  enough 
to  admit  of  a  certain  freedom  of  movement  for  its  different 
units.  In  brief,  a  basis  was  to  be  found  for  the  co-operation 
of  Lutheran  synods.  The  attempt  to  bring  tliis  about  will 
be  historically  presented  in  the  picture  of  this  period. 

We  should  direct  our  attention,  1  )  to  territorial  expan- 
sion;  2  )  to  the  problem  of  ministerial  education;  3  )  to  the 
organization  of  synods  into  larger  bodies. 

1  )  As  immigration  proceeded  westward,  the  Lutheran 
Church  reached  the  shores  of  tlu-  Pacific.  Moreover,  a  vast 
stream  of  European  Immigration  flooded  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  care  tor  these  multitudes  would  have  been 
impossible,   had    not    the    churches    of    Germany    and    Scan- 

(87) 


88  SYNODS   ORGANIZED    INTO    LARGER    BODIES. 

dinavia  faithfully  co-operated  with  the  Lutherans  of  Amer- 
ica. Independent  of  American  traditions  and  influences, 
a  large  number  of  synods  sprang  up  in  the  West. 

2)  As  the  church  grew  stronger,  educational  institu- 
tions (seminaries,  colleges  and  academies)  were  founded 
for  the  purpose  of  training  ministers,  so  that  the  Church  of 
this  country  would  not  be  dependent  upon  the  Fatherland. 

3 )  The  organization  of  a  united  American  Lutheran 
Church  was  prevented  by  the  separation  of  the  mother- 
synod  from  the  General  Synod,  her  own  off-spring,  (cf.  §35). 
The  origin  of  the  four  "General  Synods"  is  closely  asso- 
ciated with  the  confessional  development  which  we  shall 
trace  through  the  book  and  review  in  the  closing  pages. 
We  shall  notice  the  successive  organizations  of  the  General 
Synod,  the  General  Synod  of  the  South  (later  United  Synod 
of  the  South),  the  General  Council  and  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference. As  we  review  their  development,  we  shall  also 
consider  individual  synods  whose  history  runs  parallel  with 
that  of  the  larger  bodies. 

Author's  Note:  The  reader  will  probably  discover  that 
we  have  dealt  very  fully  with  the  records  of  the  General 
Synod.  At  times  it  would  seem  that  we  have  in  this  respect 
proven  untrue  to  our  announced  purpose  of  presenting  only 
"A  Brief  History."  However,  this  was  not  done  to  favor 
this  synod  —  surely  our  way  of  showing  the  many  mistakes 
in  its  earlier  development  will  testify  to  that  —  but  because 
the  evolution  of  this  synod  (which  often  appears  rather  as 
a  reversion)  includes  the  common  history  of  a  large  number 
of  other  synods.  The  inner  growth  of  the  General  Synod 
is  prehistorical  to  the  records  of  the  General  Council  and 
also  to  those  of  the  United  Synod  of  the  South.  The  his- 
tory of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  comes  repeatedly  in  con- 
tact with  it.  And  many  a  position  taken  by  the  Synodical 
Conference  becomes  intelligible  only  when  seen  in  contrast 
with  that  of  the  General  Synod. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GENERAL  SYNOD. 


§  7.     The  Founding  of  the  General  Synod. 

1.  The  matter  was  first  suggested  by  two  pas- 
tors of  the  Synod  of  North  CaroHiia,  the  Revs.  C. 
A.  G.  Storch  and  GottHeb  Schober,  who  spoke  of  the 
desirabihty  of  forming  a  General  Synod  as  early  as 
1811.  They  proposed  that  their  synod  should  con- 
fer with  the  "mother  synod"  of  Pennsylvania  to  this 
end.  At  its  convention  in  Harrisburg  (1818)  the  Min- 
isterium  of  Pennsylvania  placed  itself  on  record  as 
favoring  this  movement.  When  in  1819  the  synod 
met  at  Baltimore,  Md.,  the  Rev.  G.  Schober  sub- 
mitted a  proposed  plan  (Planentwurf)  for  the  con- 
stitution of  such  a  general  body. 

2.  The  Idea  Takes  Shape.  In  many  respects 
Schober's  proposed  constitution  was  modelled  after 
that  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  mother  synod  appointed  a  committee 
to  make  further  suggestions,  which  resulted  in  the 
elimination  of  some  objectionable  features  and  the 
adding  of  other  elements,  chiefly  of  a  congregational 
character.  Thus  in  its  altered  form  the  proposed 
plan  -®  was  adopted,  it  being  understood  that,  if 
three-fourths  of  the  existing  synods  would  adopt 
it  in  its  fundamental  features.  Dr.  J.  G.  Schmucker, 


=*  See   Documentary    History   of   the    Pennsylvania   Synod,  pp.    S41-44; 
also    Lutheran   Church    Review,   XI,   46. 

(89) 


90  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  §    7," 

then  president  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  -^  should 
call  a  convention  of  delegates.  ^°  This  most  important 
convention  was  held  in  Hagerstown,  Md.,  Oct.  22, 
1820.  The  Pennsylvania  Ministerium,  the  New  York 
Ministerium,  the  North  Carolina  Synod  and  the 
Synods  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  were  represented. 
The  Tennessee  Synod,  just  founded,  and  the  Joint 
Synod  of  Ohio  did  not  attend.  The  Tennessee  Synod 
objected  on  doctrinal  grounds,  asserting  that  the 
proposed  plan  made  no  mention  of  either  the  Bible 
or  the  Augsburg  Confession ;  "^  also  that  synods 
should  not  be  ruled  by  majorities.  Moreover  Christ, 
had  never  said  anything  about  a  church  government.  ^■- 
The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  rejected  the  plan  for  a  num- 
ber of  practical  reasons.  ^^ 

Pastor  J.  G.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  born  at  Michaelsstadt, 
Germany,  in  1771,  immigrated  to  this  country  with  his 
parents  (1785),  who  settled  near  Woodstock,  Va.  The  re- 
ligious atmosphere  of  his  home  bore  fruit  in  the  talented 
youth  who  prepared  himself  for  the  ministry.  When  eigh- 
teen years  old,  he  studied  theology  under  Pastor  Paul 
Henckel.  He  went  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and, 
after  taking  a  two  years'  course  in  the  classics,  continued 
his  theological  studies  under  Drs.  Helmuth  and  Schmidt. 
He  became   a   member   of   the    Pennsylvania   Synod    (1792), 


="  This  synod  had  at  that  time  seventy-four  ministers  and  two 
hundred  and  seventy-eight  congregations. 

'"See  Evangelical  Review,  V,  240  sq.  P.  Anstadt,  Life  and  Times 
of  Schmucker,  118  sq. 

» This  was  true.  On  account  of  the  many  tendencies  then  pre- 
valent in  the  New  York  Ministerium  and  in  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
it  was  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  common  confessional  basis.  The  prob- 
lem was  to  be  solved  later  by  recommendations  for  a  confession 
which  was  to  be  incorporated  in  a  constitution  for  the  district 
synods.     This  took  place  in  1829.     (See  §  11,  1,  a.) 

'"Anstadt,  Life  and  Times,  etc.,  p.  154. 

^Dr.  Jacobs,  ut  supra,  358;  Anstadt,  as  quoted,  153;  Peter  and 
Schmidt,    Geschichte   der   Synode    von    Ohio,   pp.   23-27. 


§    7,"*'  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  9 1 

and  served  the  congregations  of  Hagerstown,  York  and 
vicinit}'.  He  died  in  1854.  He  was  a  man  of  untiring  dili- 
gence in  study,  and  published  a  number  of  books,  mostly  in 
German.  He  left  a  manuscript  on  a  practical  exegesis  of 
the  epistles  to  the  Hebrews.  He  was  frequently  elected 
president  of  his  synod,  which  found  in  him  an  enthusiastic 
advocate  of  missionary  activity.  He  had  a  large  family. 
Four  of  his  daughters  married  Lutheran  clergymen,  and 
one  of  his  sons,  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker.  was  for  many  years 
professor  at  Gettysburg. 

3.  Discouragements.  The  condition  that  at  least 
three  synods  would  have  to  adopt  the  proposed  con- 
stitution before  a  general  body  could  be  recognized 
was  barely  fulfilled.  The  New  York  Ministerium 
withdrew,  declaring  the  plan  "impractical."  ^*  At 
the  second  convention  even  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
hitherto  leading  the  movement,  refused  to  co-operate. 
This  was  due  not  to  doctrinal  dissensions  or  to  dis- 
agreement of  the  leaders,  but  to  certain  prejudices 
that  had  arisen  among  the  congregations.  Political 
demagogues,  inspired  by  motives  of  self-interest,  men 
antagonistic  to  the  Church,  Germans  dreading  au- 
thority, circulated  reports  that  the  General  Synod, 
Bible  societies  and  theological  seminaries  were  part 
of  a  secret  scheme  to  establish  a  union  between  the 
State  and  the  Church  and  to  introduce  the  com- 
pulsory religion  of  the  old  country.  A  Reformed 
teacher,  Carl  Gock,  had  by  his  writings  aroused  a 
storm  of  opposition.  ^"  So  strong  was  this  prejudice 
that  the  pastors  considered  it  policy  to  yield  to 
it,   hoping  that   eventually   they   might   overcome   it. 


"It   joined   nine    years    afterwards,    1837. 

"Dr.    A.    Spaeth,    C.    P.    Krauth.    I,    325;    Anstadt    ut    supra,    149; 
Dr.   Jacobs,   History,   etc.,  p.   360. 


i)2  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  §    7.* 

But  not  until  1853  did  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  retrace 
this  step.  ^* 

4.  Growth.  The  prejudice  just  mentioned  did  not, 
however,  extend  to  those  congregations  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Ministerium  which  were  located  west  of 
the  Susquehanna  River.  These  separated  from  the 
mother  synod,  and  in  1823  joined  the  General  Synod 
as  the  West  Pennsylvania  Synod.  The  man  who 
saved  the  General  Synod  at  this  critical  point  of  its 
development  was  a  young  man  of  twenty-five,  just 
ordained,  the  Rev.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  of  New  Market, 
Va.  According  to  Dr.  Diehl  and  Dr.  Beal  M. 
Schmucker  (the  son)  this  energetic  clergyman  by  cor- 
respondence or  personal  calls  inspired  the  discouraged 
and  prevailed  on  them  to  send  delegates  to  the  synod. 
He  saw  to  it  that  the  West  Pennsylvania  Synod  was 
organized  early  enough  to  be  represented  as  the 
third  synod  at  Frederick,  Md.,  in  1823. "'  And  now 
the  General  Synod  made  some  rapid  strides.  New 
synods  were  founded  and  affiliated  with  the  General 
Synod:  the  Hartwick  Synod  in  1831  (a  synod  founded 
in  opposition  to  the  New  York  Ministerium  and  now 
dissolved  into  the  New  York  Synod  which  was  formed 
in  1908)  ;  1835  the  South  Carolina  Synod ;  1837  the 
New  York  Ministerium;  1842  the  English-speaking 
district  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  (the  present  East 
Ohio  Synod,  which  was  instrumental  in  founding 
Wittenberg  College)  ;  the  East  Pennsylvania  Synod 
and  the  Alleghany  Synod  in  the  same  year ;    in  1845 


*•  An  attempt  made  in  1839  to  cause  the  reunion  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  with  the  General  Synod  failed  on  account  of  the 
opposition  of  certain  congregations  (Reading  among  them).  Jacob 
Miller,    History    of   Trinity    Church,    Reading,    Pa. 

"  Anstadt,    pp.    124,    132    sq. 


§    7.*'  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  93 

the  Miami  Synod;  in  1848  the  Illinois  Synod  ^*  and 
the  Wittenberg  Synod;  in  1850  the  Olive  Branch 
Synod;  in  1853  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  (after 
an  independent  existence  for  thirty  years)  ;  in  the 
same  year  the  Texas  Synod  ^^  and  the  Synod  of 
Northern  Illinois ;  the  Pittsburgh  Synod  (§  19,  3)  ; 
in  1857  the  Synotl  of  Northern  Indiana ;  also  the 
Synod  of  Southern  Illinois  and  the  Knglish-speaking 
Synod  of  Iowa;  in  1859  the  Melanchthon  Synod ; '"^ 
in  1864  the  Franckean  Synod.  *^  Further  districts 
which  united  with  the  General  Synod  will  be  men- 
tioned later  (§  10,  3,  Annotation).  It  should  be  borne 
in  mind,  however,  that  those  enumerated  above  only 
include  synods  now  in  existence  or  historically  prom- 
inent. (Some  of  these  synods  were  branches  of 
other  synods,  a  fact  which  accounts  for  the  small- 
ness  of  certain  district  synods  belonging  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod).  In  course  of  time  other  synods  united 
with  the  General  Synod,  notably  the  Synod  of  the 
Southwest,  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  the  Central 
Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  which  were  later  merged 
into  other  districts.  *" 

5.  The  First  Seminary  of  the  General  Synod. 
The  General  Synod  realized  at  an  early  date  the 
necessity  of  theological  training  schools.  While  Hart- 
wick  Seminary  in  the  State  of  New  York  offered  a 

■It  seceded  at  the  time  of  the  rupture  in  the  General  Synod 
which  caused  the  origin  of  the  General  Council  (1867).  It  passed 
from  the  Council  into  the  Missouri  Synod  where  it  lost  its  identity 
(8  22,  7,  d). 

"United  with  the  General  Council  in  1868,,  but  afterwards  be- 
came   the    Texas    district    of    the    Iowa    Synod. 

*•  Xo    longer   in   existence.     See    }    10,   3,    a. 

"  The  Franckean  Synod,  which,  like  the  Hartwick  Synod,  op- 
posed the  New  York  Ministerium,  merged  into  the  New  York  .Synod 
(General   Synod)   in    1908.     Comp.   9   10,   3.   b. 

*»  Evangelical  Review,  \7I,  413. 


94  THE    GENERAL   SYNOD.  §    7,^-^ 

theological  course,  it  furnished  few  candidates  for 
the  ministry.  Nor  did  Hartwick  Synod  join  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  until  1831.  During  the  third  convention, 
held  at  Frederick,  Md.,  resolutions  were  passed  for 
the  founding  of  a  theological  seminary  at  Gettys- 
burg, Pa.  Rev.  S.  S.  Schmucker  was  elected  pro- 
fessor. Like  Dr.  Lochman,  Dr.  D.  F.  Schaeffer  and 
others,  this  clergyman,  when  only  twenty-six,  had 
been  preparing  young  men  for  the  ministry,  one  of 
whom  was  the  Rev.  G.  J.  Morris.  We  shall  later  see 
what  kind  of  a  confessional  obligation  was  required 
of  the  professor  for  the  new  seminary  (§  11,  1).  In 
September,  1826,  the  Gettysburg  institution  was 
opened  with  an  enrollment  of  ten  students.  Com- 
missioned by  the  synod,  Dr.  Benjamin  Kurtz,  on  a 
two  years'  trip  through  Germany,  collected  some 
$8,000  and  a  large  number  of  books  with  which  to 
start  a  library.  On  his  journey  Kurtz  suggested  im- 
migration to  the  noted  Pastor  Stephan  of  Dresden, 
who  later  became  prominent  in  connection  with  the 
Missouri  Synod  (§  22,  3).  Professor  Schmucker  col- 
lected $17,500  (a  year's  work)  in  Philadelphia.  Rev. 
E.  L.  Hazelius  (§6,  1)  in  1830  became  the  second  pro- 
fessor. He  was  succeeded  (1833)  by  Charles  Philip 
Krauth.  *^ 

6.     The  First  Church  Papers. "    Even  before  1812 
the  Mosheim  Society  of  Zion's  and  St.  Michael's  Phila- 


^  See  Spaeth,  C.  P.  Krauth,  I,  11.  About  the  Gettysburg  Sem- 
inary   in    general    see   §    12,    1. 

*•  As  our  source  of  information  we  mention  the  valuable  con- 
tribution to  the  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Gettysburg,  Pa.  (April,  1912), 
Vol.  XLII,  No.  2,  by  Dr.  F.  G.  Gotwald,  General  Secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Education  of  the  General  Synod  and  editor  of  Lutheran 
Church  Work,  entitled  "Pioneer  American  Lutheran  Journalism, 
1812-1850." 


§  7,"  THK  <;f.nkral  svxop.  95 

delphia,  had  published  a  Httle  German  paper  full  of 
missionary  news.  In  1812,  by  a  resolution  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  passed  at  its  64th  convention, 
"Das  Evangelische  Magazin"  (The  Evangelical  Maga- 
zine), a  quarterly  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  pages 
(annually),  was  published,  with  Dr.  Helmuth  as  editor- 
in-chief.  But  in  1817  it  was  discontinued,  having  ap- 
peared merely  as  a  year-book  during  the  preceding 
three  years.  The  next  attempt  of  this  character  was 
an  English  monthly  comprising  some  twenty-eight 
pages,  called  "The  Evangelicsd  Lutheran  Intelligencer." 
It  was  published  by  the  Synod  of  Maryland  and  Vir- 
ginia, and  appeared  for  the  first  time  in  1826.  It  con- 
tained an  important  letter  (written  in  English)  by 
Professor  Planck  of  Goettingen,  addressed  to  the 
General  Synod.  ^■'  During  its  brief  career  of  five 
years  it  was  edited  by  the  Rev.  D.  F.  Schaeffer  of 
Frederick,  Md.,  who  found  an  able  collaborator  in 
the  Rev.  Charles  Philip  Krauth.  Both  men  are  known 
as  fathers  of  the  General  Synod,  and  distinguished 
themselves  by  their  consistent  Lutheranism.  It  was 
this  Dr.  SchaefTer  who,  in  the  installation  of  Prof. 
S.  S.  Schmucker  as  teacher  of  Gettysburg  Seminary, 
used  the  following  language :  "Because  the  faith  of 
our  Lutheran  Church  is  based  on  the  Bible  and  its 
strongest  enemies  have  been  unable  to  prove  any  in- 
congruity to  speak  of  between  its  teaching  and  that 
of  the  Scriptures,  just  as  the  foes  of  truth  at  the  Diet 
of  Worms  were  unable  to  detect  any  errors  in  the 
writings  of  the  immortal  Luther:  therefore  this 
church,  entrusting  you  with  the  training  of  its  min- 
isters  (and  in  it?  name  T  demand  this   solemn   vnw) 


"Reprinted  from  minutes  of  synod,  Frederick,  Md.,  1825. 


96  THE    GENERAL   SYNOD.  §    7,^ 

obligates  you  to  instruct  them  in  the  doctrines  which 
distinguish  this  church  from  all  others."  It  is  a 
matter  of  regret  that  the  ably  edited  "Lutheran  In- 
telligencer** was  discontinued  in  1831 ;  the  enterprise 
closed  with  a  deficit  of  $500,  which  was  paid  by  the 
synods  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  "The  Lutheran 
Magazine,"  also  an  English  monthly,  was  published 
by  a  committee  of  the  Western  Conference  of  the 
New  York  Ministerium,  and  edited  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
G.  A.  Lintener,  pastor  at  Schoharie,  N.  Y.  The  first 
number  appeared  in  February,  1827,  the  last  in  April, 
1831.  This  was  followed  by  the  "Evangelisches  Mag- 
azin,"  a  monthly  of  thirty-two  pages.  It  was  edited 
in  the  interest  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  Synod  by 
the  Rev.  John  Herbst  of  Gettysburg  and  supervised 
by  the  Revs.  J.  G.  Schmucker,  J.  F.  Heyer  and  W. 
Yeager.  Its  Hfe  was  short.  It  was  discontinued  in 
April,  1829.  After  the  second  year  of  its  existence 
it  was  edited  by  the  faculty  of  the  Gettysburg  sem- 
inary, Profs.  Schmucker  and  Hazelius.  Characteristic 
of  the  theological  tendencies  then  prevailing  at  Get- 
tysburg is  the  following  sentence  taken  from  an  ar- 
ticle of  the  year  1830:  "No  one,  though  he  be  a 
layman  or  a  clergyman  in  the  Church,  is  entitled  to 
the  name  Lutheran,  unless  he  stands  squarely  on  the 
fundamental  teachings  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  con- 
tained in  our  Confessions."  With  an  appeal  to  the 
subscribers  to  pay  an  accumulated  debt  of  $500,  this 
pubhcation,  too,  had  to  be  discontinued.  Limited  re- 
ceipts and  heavy  printing  expenses  accounted  for  the 
short  life  of  all  these  enterprises.  From  February 
until  August,  1831,  the  Church  in  the  East,  although 
largely  English-speaking,  had  no  English  publication. 
But  in  1832  The  Lutheran  Observer  was  founded  by 


§  /.•'•'  thf:  general  svnod.  97 

the  Rev.  J.  G.  Morris  and  published  in  Baltimore,  Md. 
A  year  later,  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Kurtz  was  made 
editor-in-chief  and  devoted  his  entire  time  to  it.  At 
hrst  it  appeared  once  in  two  weeks,  but  soon  became 
a  weekly  publication.  Until  1861,  i.  e.,  for  twenty- 
eight  years,  Dr.  Kurtz  retained  the  editorship.  He  was 
a  brilliant  writer,  and  prominently  impressed  upon 
the  paper  his  strong  personality.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  he  lacked  appreciation  of  historical  Lutheranism 
—  a  matter  we  shall  refer  to  later.  *^  Says  Dr.  Got- 
wald :  "No  editor,  certainly  not  in  the  Church  of  the 
East,  has  exerted  as  strong  and  lasting  an  influence  as 
Dr.  Benjamin  Kurtz." 

7.  Relations  to  the  Lutheran  Church  Outside  of 
the  General  Synod.  Because  the  general  organization 
of  1820  sincerely  aimed  to  serve  as  a  connecting  link 
among  all  Lutheran  synods,  it  kept  its  eye  on  existing 
and  rising  synods,  inviting  them  to  join  the  alliance. 
Thus  for  four  years  the  General  Synod  conferred  with 
the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio.  In  1839  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  considered  reunion  with  the  General  Synod,  but 
the  time  did  not  seem  to  be  ripe  for  such  a  movement. 
(See  foot-note  36.)  At  the  tenth  convention,  held  at 
Chambersburg.  Pa.,  1839,  Drs.  C.  F.  Schaeflfer,  S.  S. 
Schmucker  and  B.  Kurtz  were  appointed  "to  enter 
into  correspondence  with  Lutheran  societies  of  re- 
cent immigration  and  represented  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Stephan."  *'  This  meant  the  arrivals  from  Saxonv, 
now  the  Missourians.  At  the  fourteenth  convention, 
held  at  New  York  City  (1848).  the  General  Synod  got 

"See    biographical    note    at    the    end    of    §9;    also    note    on    Evan- 
gelical  Review,   5  9,  2;  2nd   annotation. 
«'  Ev.   Review.  V.  261. 


98  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    7,'' 


r 


in  touch  with  isolated  Lutherans  in  Nova  Scotia  and 
Canada.  It  also  invited  the  Evangelical  Synod  of 
the  West,  hoping',  no  doubt,  that  this  body  would 
adopt  a  Lutheran  platform.  *^  At  its  second  conven- 
tion (Frederick,  Md.)  it  named  a  committee  of  Cor- 
respondence with  Foreign  Countries.  This  committee 
was  authorized  to  communicate  with  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  Germany,  Denmark,  Sweden,  also  with  the 
Orphans'  Home  of  Halle  and  with  the  Rector  of  the 
University  of  Goettingen.  The  purpose  was  to  con- 
vey to  these  countries  an  impression  of  Lutheran 
progress  in  America  and  to  stimulate  co-operation 
for  the  growth  of  Christ's  kingdom.  *"  Such  a  "Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Correspondence/'  communicating 
with  eminent  churchmen  abroad,  especially  in  Ger- 
many, occupies  even  now  a  place  on  the  program 
of  the  General  Synod. 

8.  Important  for  the  inner  development  of  the 
General  Synod  was  the  founding  at  Springfield,  Ohio, 
of  Wittenberg  College  (1845),  which  also  offered  a 
theological  course.  Its  first  president  was  Dr.  Ezra 
Keller  (see  biographical  sketch).  He  was  succeeded 
by  Dr.  Samuel  Sprecher,  a  man  of  frail  physique  but 
of  great  ability  and  far-reaching  influence  (§  12,  1). 
Keller  and  Sprecher  had  been  trained  by  Dr.  S.  S. 
Schmucker.  While  Sprecher  adopted  the  theological 
and  confessional  position  of  his  teacher,  he  lived  long 
enough  to  realize  that  the  future  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  this  country  was  not  to  be  found  in  the 
ideals  which  were  then  prevalent  at  Gettysburg  and 
vSpringfield. '" 

^«  Ev.  Review,  V,  271. 
"  Ev.  Review,  V,  244. 
'"  See  biographical  note  at   the  end  of  §  9. 


v5    8,'-  ITS    SIGNIFICANCE.  99 

§  8.     The  Significance  of  the  General  Synod  for  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  that  Period. 

1.  Irenic  Tendencies.  We  have  previously  stated 
that  the  confessional  position  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America,  and  so  also  that  of  the  General  Synod, 
during  this  period  was  not  what  it  should  have  been. 
The  founding-  of  the  General  Synod  was  contempo- 
raneous with  the  founding  of  the  Prussian  Union. 
In  Germany  there  was  a  reapproachment  of  the  Re- 
formed and  the  Lutheran  parties  and  a  general  set- 
ting aside  of  confessional  distinctions.  It  is  only 
natural  that  under  such  influences  from  the  Father- 
land, the  General  Synod  also  failed  to  appreciate  suf- 
ficiently the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Lutherans 
and  the  Reformed.  Muhlenberg  had  clearly  discerned 
the  necessity  of  adhering  to  historical  Lutheranisni, 
which  can  never  be  sacrificed,  especially  in  America, 
without  serious  consequences  (cf.  §  6,  4).  He  had, 
however,  shown  his  Pietistic  training  by  occasionally 
practicing  pulpit  fellowship  with  the  Reformed  de- 
nominations. His  successors  went  even  further,  not 
hesitating  to  make  a  regular  practice  of  it.  From 
this  practice  to  a  general  confessional  confusion  was 
but  a  single  step  (cf.  §  9,  3). 

2.  But  TTie  GenerzJ  Synod  was  fundamentally 
opposed  to  organic  union  v^rith  the  Reformed.  1  lu 
joint  Synod  of  Ohio  in  1839  did  not  object  to  such  a 
union.  °'      The    pastors    of    the    Pennsylvania    Minis- 


"  History  of  the  Joint  Synoti  of  Ohio  (German)  by  Peter  and 
Schmidt,  p.  77.  Compare  §28,  2,  a.  What  brought  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio  back  into  the  right  track  and  cured  it  of  unionism  was  the  strug- 
gle against  the  revival  movement,  which  again  and  again  threatened 
the  existence  of  that  body. 


100  THE   GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    8," 

terium  looked  upon  it  as  a  cherished  hope,  ^-  though 
not  yet  practical  because  of  opposition  on  the  part 
of  the  laity,  who  suspected  in  every  movement  toward 
synodical  concentration  hierarchical  ambitions.  ^^  One 
reason  why  many  pastors  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
wished  to  withdraw  from  the  General  Synod  was  the 
fact  that  they  preferred  to  give  their  support  to  a 
Reformed-Lutheran  seminary  at  Lancaster  rather 
than  to  that  at  Gettysburg,  projected  by  the  General 
Synod.  ^*  To  all  attempts  at  organic  union  with  the 
Reformed  the  General  Synod  was  radically  opposed. 
Says  Dr.  Jacobs :  "The  General  Synod  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  very  important  forward  movement,  and 
its  influence  as  beneficial.  .  .  .  The  General  Synod 
was  a  protest  against  the  schemes  of  a  union  with 
the  Reformed  in  Pennsylvania  (see  §  6,  3)  and  with 
the  Episcopalians  in  North  Carolina  (see  §  6,  1).  It 
stood  for  the  independent  existence  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  and  the  clear  and  unequivocal 
confession  of  a  positive  faith."  ^^  Organic  union  with 
other  churches  was  consistently  opposed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  strikingly  so  at  the  seventh  convention, 
held  at  Baltimore,  1833.  ^'^  At  the  convention  at  Day- 
ton, Ohio,  in  1855,  resolutions  were  adopted  con- 
demning the  practice,  then  popular  in  Pennsylvania,  of 


°-  See   the    transactions    of   1822. 

"Spaeth,  C.  P.  Krauth,  I,  325. 

'^  See  transactions  of  1819.  Dr.  Theodore  E.  Schmauk,  a  stu- 
dent of  Lutheranism  in  Pennsylvania,  writes  us:  "The  leading  tempta- 
tion to  union  in  the  Ministerium  were  external  and  not  internal,  viz., 
the  question  of  language  and  the  making  of  common  cause  with  the 
Reformed  Church  in  the  preservation  of  congregational  schools,  as  over 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  public  school  system."  As  to  the 
confessional  side  of  judging  the  attitude  of  the  Ministerium  cf.  §  10,  3,  1. 

"History,    p.    362. 

«Ev.   Review,  V,  255. 


§    8,-''*  ITS    SIGNIFICANCE.  lOI 

building   churches    for    the    common    worship   of   the 
Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.  ^' 

3.  The  General  Synod  was  also  a  protest  against 
the  Socinianizing  tendencies  which  endangered  Lu- 
theranism  in  Xew  York.  Says  Dr.  Jacobs:  "The 
General  Synod  saved  the  Church,  as  it  became  angli- 
cised, from  the  calamity  of  the  type  of  doctrine  which, 
within  the  New  York  Ministerium,  had  been  intro- 
duced into  the  English  language."  ^*  The  majority  of 
ministers  belonging  to  the  New  York  Ministerium 
preached  rationalistic  sermons.  None  but  men  of  this 
type  were  permitted  to  fill  the  pulpit  of  Dr.  Quitman, 
president  of  this  body.  "'^  Rationalism  and  latitudin- 
arism  were  in  the  air.  Among  the  cultured  this  ten- 
dency found  expression  in  Tom  Paine's  "Age  of  Rea- 
son." Thus  the  General  Synod,  with  its  strong  po- 
sition against  those  Socinianizing  elements  which  had 
been  imported  from  Europe  to  New  York,  became 
a  source  of  blessing  for  the  Lutheran  Church  of 
America. 

4.  The  influence  of  the  General  Synod  on  this 
period  is  thus  characterized  by  Dr.  Spaeth :  "With 
this  powerful  influx  of  rationalism,  and  with  the  ten- 
dency of  the  remaining  positive  elements  of  our 
church  to  assimilate  and  to  unite  themselves  with 
the  surrounding  'Evangelical  denominations,'  there 
was  evident  danger  for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Am- 
erica of  losing  the  historical  connection  with  the 
fathers,  and  surrendering  the  distinctive  features  for 
which    thev    contended,    and    as    a    religious    societv. 


•'  Ev.    Review,    VII,    418. 
■■'  History,    p.    362. 

••See   the   letters  of  S.   S.   Schmucker   to   his   father   in   .Anstadt,   Life 
and   Times   of   S.    S.    Schmucker.    p.   69. 


i02  THE    CiKNEKAL    SYNOD:  §    8/ 

becoming  simply  a  member  of  the  Reformed  family. 
At  this  point  of  threatening  disintegration  and  dilapi- 
dation, the  first  steps  were  taken  toward  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  General  Synod,  which  was  certainly 
an  honest  effort  to  improve  the  state  of  affairs,  to 
gather  the  scattered  members  of  our  Lutheran  Church, 
and  to  preserve  her  as  such  on  this  Western  conti- 
nent." In  this  sense  Dr.  Krauth  calls  the  General 
Synod  "the  offspring  of  reviving  Lutheranism."  *'*' 
It  watched  jealously  over  the  independence  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  from  other  denominations.  Church 
papers  to  be  published  had  to  be  Lutheran  papers 
(§  7,  5;  cf.  §  9,  1,  on  Lutheran  Ol^server),  while 
the  Pennsyh^ania  Synod,  even  as  late  as  1838,  looked 
with  favor  on  a  paper  officially  to  be  published  in 
common  by  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutherans.  *^^ 
Equally  important  is  the  stand  taken  by  the  General 
Synod  against  Socinianizing  influences,  of  which  not 
even  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  though  less  affected 
by  it  than  New  York,  had  remained  free.  In  "Lu- 
theran and  Missionary"  (May  3,  1866)  Dr.  Krauth 
writes  concerning  the  Pennsylvania  Synod :  "It  felt 
the  latitudinarian  tendency  of  the  day ;  some  of  its 
clergy  and  an  immense  proportion  of  its  people  were 
averse  to  the  General  Synod  on  the  ground  of  its 
ofrowins:  Lutheran  character."  ^- 


«>  Spaeth,  C.  P.  Krauth.  I,  320. 

"'  Prof.  Frederick  Schmidt  of  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa.,  was 
editor.  He  kept  the  paper  in  existence  until  1846.  See  F.  G.  Cotvvald, 
ut    supra,   p.   193. 

"^  Spaeth,  ut  supra,  I,  328.  However,  we  should  not  go  too  far  in 
charging  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  with  Socinianism.  The  synod 
especially  affected  was  the  New  York  Ministerium.  And  since  the 
denominations  round  about  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  were  honeycombed 
with  Rationalism  and  much  of  the  literature  from  the  Fatherland  bore 
the  same  stamp,  it  was  no  wonder  that  Lntheranism  in  the  Ministerium 


§  8,^  ITS  si(;nifrance.  103 

5.  And  still  the  General  Synod  did  not  succeed 
in  finding  the  confessional  position  on  which  it  might, 
as  a  leading  organization,  have  been  sure  of  a  de- 
velopment without  inner  dissensions.  The  fact  was 
simply  this  that  the  General  Synod  could  not  go 
beyond  itself  and  its  age.  After  characterizing  the 
existence  of  the  General  Synod  as  "a  very  important 
forward  movement"  '^^  and  praising  "its  influence  as 
beneficial,"  Dr.  Jacobs  continues  :  "It  necessarily  was 
not  without  the  weaknesses  that  characterized  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America  at  that  time.  One  who 
ignores  the  entire  historical  development  will  find 
nmch  to  criticise  and  condemn,  when  examined  from 
the  standpoint  of  what  is  demanded  by  consistency 
with  accurate  theological  definitions  and  clear  con- 
ceptions of  church  polity.  But  he  will  find  just  as 
much  that  incurs  the  same  judgment  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  synods  that  united  to  form  it.  The 
faults  peculiar  to  each  synod  were  lost,  while  only 
the  common  faults  of  them  all  remained."  As  we 
proceed  fin  the  following  chapter)  to  view  the  mis- 
takes of  the  English  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
America,  we  shall  try  to  account  also  for  them  in 
the  light  of  the  age  and  its  general  tendencies. 


§  9.     Aberrations. 

1.     Introductory     Remarks.       That     the     General 
Synod  did  not  develop  along  the  lines  of  consistent 


was  also  dragced  down.  Neither  were  the  latitudinarian  sentiment.* 
altogether  absent  in  the  districts  of  the  General  Synod,  but  the  gen- 
eral body  as  such  in  its  influential  men  was  on  its  cruard  against 
this  danger. 

•*  History,  p.  362. 


104  "^^^    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    9,' 

Lutheranism,  to  which  it  swung  back  only  after 
a  series  of  conflicts  and  controversies,  is  best  explained 
by  the  circumstances  surrounding  its  history. 

The  English  language  reached  ever  widening  cir- 
cles at  a  time  when  there  was  not  yet  an  EngUsh 
literature  breathing  the  Lutheran  spirit.  English 
speaking  Lutheran  laymen  had  to  resort  to  a  devo- 
tional literature  full  of  Methodistic  and  Puritanic 
suggestions ;  ^*  while  ministers,  barely  familiar  with 
the  German  tongue,  filled  the  shelves  of  their  library 
with  books  of  Reformed  authorship  and  assimilated 
erroneous  view-points.  Thus  many  lost  the  sense  of 
consistent  Lutheranism.  They  recognized  as  funda- 
mental those  features  which  all  denominations  held 
in  common,  and  considered  as  non-fundamental  the 
special  heritage  from  the  Church  of  Luther. 

In    the    popular    distinction    between    fundamental    and 

non-fundamental  doctrines  with  reference  to  the  differences 
between  the  denominations,  there  is  frequently  an  unde- 
tected fallacy.  The  Reformed  Church  believes  with  us  in 
justification  by  faith,  but  — apart  from  other  distinctions  — 
it  fails  to  assign  to  this  dogma  the  central  position  which  it 
occupies  in  the  Lutheran  view.  It  obscures  its  comforting 
features  with  suggestions  of  a  religious  legalism.  Again, 
both  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches  believe  in  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  an  entirely  different  idea  of 
this  work  is  conveyed  when  seen  in  the  light  of  predestina- 
tion as  taught  by  the  Reformed.  It  is  impossible  to  sepa- 
rate the  teachings,  held  in  common  by  all  churches,  from 
those  which  separate  the  different  denominations  by  classi- 
fying the  former  as  essential  and  the  latter  as  non-essen- 
tial. The  distinctive  doctrines  often  — and  especially  in 
case    of    the    great    fundamentals —  materially    affect    the 


"  See  what  we  said  §  7,  5  about  the  first  beginnings  of  the  church 
press;  note  also  Dr.  Jacob's  comment  (History,  p.  340  sq.)  on  the  first 
editions   of  hymnals   and   prayer  books. 


§    9/  ABERRATIONS.  IO5 

whole  system  of  thought.  That  there  are  fundamental  and 
non-fundamental  doctrines  is  not  denied,  but  the  mistake 
consisted  in  the  wrong  application  of  this  distinction.  The 
mistake  usually  begins  with  asking:  What  is  fundamental 
for  salTation?  The  question  should  be  formulated  in  this 
way:  What  is  fundamental  for  Lutheranism  in  its  work  of 
saving  souls?  Then  it  will  be  found  that  the  special  herit- 
age of  the  Lutheran  Church  has  everything  to  do  with  the 
success  of  this  church  in  its  practical  work  of  winning  souls 
for  Christ. 

The  founders  of  the  General  Synod,  while  eager 
to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
were  very  cordial  with  other  denominations.  Patri- 
arch Muhlenberg  himself,  as  we  have  observed,  ex- 
changed pulpits  with  the  Reformed  and  the  Episco- 
palians. *•'•  After  that  a  friendly  relation  with  other 
churches  became  a  traditional  Lutheran  policy.  The 
exclusive  attitude  of  Berkenmeyer,  who  v^ould  not 
co-operate  with  Muhlenberg,  in  v^^hom  he  saw  noth- 
ing but  a  Pietist  from  Halle  (§  3,  4),  had  thus  far 
affected  only  the  Synod  of  Tennessee.  The  practice 
of  fellowship  was  further  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that  the  English  Lutheran  Church  was  weak  and  had 
a  tendency  to  lean  on  other  denominations  whose  work 
had  begun  in  English  and  which  had  now  attained  a 
measure  of  success.  This  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  an 
incident  related  by  Dr.  J.  G.  Morris,  the  first  editor  of 
"The  Lutheran  Observer."  This  paper  was  to  be  pub- 
lished at  Gettysburg  and  to  be  edited  by  the  facultv 
of  Gettysburg  seminary,  but  fearing  that  the  name 
Lutheran    might    oflfend    the    Presbyterians    residing 

•"See  S  4,  8.  There  ia  in  Muhlenberg's  history  no  evidence  of  altar 
fellowship  with  other  denomin<Ttions.  His  theological  position  would 
not  have  permitted  this.  As  to  his  practice,  compare  G.  Fritschel  in  an 
article   in   Brobst's   Monatschefte,   Nov.   and   Dec,   1868. 


I06  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    9,^ 

there,  who  had  supported  the  Lutherans  in  building  a 
church,  yet  desirous  of  retaining  this  name,  the  com- 
mittee decided  to  transfer  the  editorship  to  Dr.  Morris 
and  the  place  of  publication  to  Baltimore,  Md.,  where 
the  Presbyterians  would  not  have  to  be  considered.  ** 

The  question  of  church  fellowship  between  Lutherans 
and  non-Lutherans  has  been  much  discussed.  The  principle 
that  fellowship  at  the  Lord's  table  should  be  permitted  only 
where  there  is  fellowship  of  faith  was  proclaimed  by  Lu- 
ther, Melanchthon,  the  other  Lutheran  reformers,  also  by 
Spener,  and  is  generally  adhered  to  throughout  the  Lu- 
theran Church.  The  same  principle  applies  to  pulpit  fel- 
lowship in  the  regular  church  service."  On  other  occasions, 
side  meetings,  or  semi-religious  gatherings  of  an  interde- 
nominational character,  ministers  should  be  at  liberty  to 
use  their  discretion.  Those  who  are  strong  in  Lutheran 
convictions  can  make  use  of  such  liberty  with  less  detri- 
ment to  the  Lutheran  cause  than  those  who  are  not  thor- 
oughly grounded  in  the  Lutheran  faith.  A  chief  considera- 
tion, however,  should  always  be  the  possible  influence  on 
the  community  of  such  union  meetings.  Truth  should  not 
make  concession  to  error,  and  our  practice  should  testify 
to  the  faithfulness  in  standing  for  our  convictions.  Even 
in  cases  where  our  participation  in  a  union  meeting  as  such 
may  be  defensible,  the  question  may  have  to  be  considered 
whether  our  action  does  not  promote  and  encourage  a 
unionism  that  cannot  be  defended  by  a  faithful  minister  of 
the  Word. 

Certain  it  is  that  the  intimate  relations  between 
the  General  Synod,  then  becoming  anglicized,  and 
other  denominations  proved  detrimental  to  Lutheran- 
ism.  It  was  a  time  when  the  Church  was  in  danger 
of  losing  its  special  heritage.  The  Lutheran  view  of 
the  Sacraments  became  obscured.     People  grew  sus- 


"*  Dr.  J.   G.  Morris,  "Fifty  Years  in  the  Lutheran  Ministry.' 
"  Galesburg   Rule,    §  18. 


^    y,'--  ABERRATIONS.  IO7 

picious  of  the  spirit  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  its 
teachers,  its  confessions  and  its  histor\.  Church 
ideals  that  had  sprnng-  from  the  sdil  of  the  Reformed 
Church  and  liad  matured  in  an  atmosphere  of  legalism, 
clouded  the  Lutheran  view-point.  There  was  as  yet, 
as  we  have  remarked,  no  Lutheran  literature  in  the 
Rnt^flish  languasje.  The  leading"  ministers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  had  I>cen  largely  educated  in  non-Lutheran 
schools  (preferably  Princeton).  While  a  reaction 
hacl  been  felt  in  Germany  against  the  Prussian  Lhiion, 
the  English  speaking  Lutherans  of  America  were 
unable  (on  account  of  the  language)  to  study  this 
theological  movement.  In  short,  the  Zeitgeist  was 
interconfessional.  Revivals  found  their  way  into  the 
Lutheran  Church.  In  the  General  S}nod  a  school  of 
men  grew  up  whose  aim  it  was  to  create  for  the 
"American  Lutheran  Church,"  a  platform  so  broadly 
evangelical  that  the  essentials  of  Lutheranism  were 
lost  sight  of. 

2.     Visiting  with  the  Methodists.    The  first  of  the 

great  revivals  to  which  we  have  just  referred  took 
place  between  1727  and  1750.  It  followed  a  period  of 
gross  infidelity.  Atheism  had  come  from  the  Old 
World  and  dominated  large  circles  of  society.  The 
Xew  England  States  replaced  their  I'uritanism  with 
unbelief  and  frivolity.  But  the  religious  wants  of  the 
human  soul  caused  a  reaction  in  the  form  of  revivals. 
Whole  sections  of  the  country,  especially  in  the  East, 
recorded  a  tidal  wave  of  "conversions."  But  when 
the  War  of  Independence  followed  (1776-83),  the 
country  became  demoralized.  Rank  unbelief  and  a 
shocking  atheism  —  imported  from  France  —  swayed 
the  multitude.     Says  Graebner  : 


Io8  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §   9,^ 

"This  infidelity  was  inscribed  in  books  that  were  sold; 
it  was  cultivated  in  schools  and  societies,  carved  into 
marble,  painted  on  canvas,  sung  in  popular  airs,  practiced 
in  life  and  clung  to  in  death.  *  *  *  Washington  was 
idolized,  but  God  blasphemed,  the  Church  and  its  services 
scorned,  the  ministerial  office  despised,  all  things  sacred 
traduced.  *  *  *  But  in  striking  contrast  with  this  gen- 
eral infidelity  there  arose,  during  the  last  decade  of  the 
century,  a  fire  of  religious  fervor  which,  flaming  through 
the  spiritual  wilderness,  took  hold  of  thousands  with  violent 
force.  *  *  *  Almost  simultaneously  it  sprang  up  in  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  country.  One  great  wave  came  from 
the  Southwest,  from  the  further  side  of  the  Cumberland 
mountains  where  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  infidelitjf  had 
reached  the  acme  of  defiance.  *  *  *  A  number  of  Pres- 
byterian and  Methodist  preachers  went  from  place  to 
place  impressing  thousands  with  their  religious  eloquence. 
Meanwhile  things  were  stirring  in  New  England.  The 
pendulum  swung  hither  and  thither." 

This  was  the  time  when  Wesley's  Methodism 
formed  itself  into  an  independent  church,  and  soon 
became  a  power  throughout  the  land.  Camp-meet- 
ings were  the  craze  of  the  day.  They  took  posses- 
sion of  large  parts  of  the  country.  The  harvest  was 
neglected.  Whole  settlements  were  deserted,  their 
inhabitants  traveling  fifty  miles  to  take  part  in 
the  revival.  At  Cane  Ridge  fifty  thousand  peo- 
ple, gathered  out  of  all  churches,  attended  such  a 
meeting.  "They  preached,  prayed  and  sang  by  day 
and  by  night  when  innumerable  torches,  candles  and 
lanterns,  attached  to  wagons  and  trees,  would  light 
up  the  darkness.  Holy  communion  was  administered 
on  a  large  scale.  Amid  the  mingled  sounds  of  sigh- 
ing, groaning  and  lamenting,  the  preachers  impressed 
their  audiences."  (Graebner.)  The  strangest  prac- 
tices were  looked  upon  without  surprise.    Little  chil- 


§    9.'  AnERRATIONS.  IO9 

dren  preached  sermons.  Men  and  women  dropped 
from  their  seats  and  lay  unconscious  on  the  ground. 
Says  McMaster:  "At  no  time  was  less  than  half 
the  floor  covered.  Some  were  lying  still,  unable  to 
move  or  speak,  others  kicked  the  floor  with  their 
heels,  still  others  screamed  in  agony  and  squirmed 
like  fishes  pulled  out  of  the  water.  Many  were  ly- 
ing on  the  ground  rolling  around  for  hours  at  a  time. 
Others  jumped  wildly  over  the  stumps  of  trees  and 
rushed  into  the  woods  crying:     'Lost,  lost!'" 

The  purpose  of  it  all  was  the  new  birth.  This 
being  accomplished,  singing  and  rejoicing  were  in 
order.  The  "holy  laughter"  and  the  "jumping-fit" 
revealed  an  extraordinary  state  of  grace  and  were 
attributed  to  a  special  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  central  figures  in  the  revivals  of  1827-32  were 
the  evangelists  Finney  and  Nettleton.  But  the 
mightiest  spectacle  of  this  character  was  offered  in 
1858  when  again,  after  a  period  of  moral  degenera- 
tion which  had  affected  all  classes  of  people,  a  wave 
of  revivalism,  starting  at  New  York,  swept  the  whole 
countr}-.  These  movements  were  invariably  preceded 
by  periods  of  religious  indifference  and  moral  decay. 
Rut  revivals,  in  turn,  were  usually  followed  by 
spiritual  apathy.  People  who  had  been  converted  in 
a  violent  way  were  no  longer  impressed  with  the 
plain  preaching  of  the  Word.  They  required  the  same 
high-pressure  methods  over  and  over  again.  Thus 
we  read  that  Finney's  revival  took  place  after  a  fifty 
year  period  of  spiritual  decay  "which  followed  in  the 
wake   of  the   awakening."  '^     Of   a   certain   locality. 

•"Our  description  is  largely  borrowed  from  Dr.  D.  H.  Bauslin's  ex- 
cellent article  (Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1910,  "The  Genesis  of  the  New 
Measure  Movement." 


no  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    9," 

visited  by  P'inney  where  revival  tires  had  burned  fre- 
quently, we  are  told  that  the  preacher  found  it  "so 
blistered  by  constant  revival  flame  that  no  sprout, 
no  blade  of  spiritual  life,  could  be  caused  to  grow. 
Only  the  apples  of  Sodom  flourished  in  the  form  of 
ignorance,  intolerance,  a  boasted  sinlessness  and  a 
tendency  to  free  love  and  spiritual  affinities."  Even 
to-day  people  speak  of  "burnt  districts,"  meaning 
those  localities  where  by  frequent  revivals  religious 
indifference  has  taken  the  place  of  unnatural  fervor 
and  where  simple  preaching  fails  to  make  an  appeal. 
A  book  entitled  "The  Anxious  Bench,"  written  by  the 
Reformed  professor.  Dr.  J.  W.  Nevin,  vigorously  at- 
tacked the  methods  of  revivalism.  This  practice,  how- 
ever, found  a  champion  in  "The  Lutheran  Observer," 
edited  by  Dr.  B.  Kurtz.  In  the  November  issue  of 
1834,  he  says:  "Whatever  Prof.  Nevin  may  have 
written  in  the  abstraction  of  his  study,  I  am  neverthe- 
less strongly  convinced,  as  a  pastor,  that  the  so-called 
'anxious  bench'  is  the  lever  of  Archimedes,  which  by 
the  blessing  of  God  can  raise  our  German  churches 
to  that  degree  of  respectability  in  the  religious  world 
which  they  ought  to  enjoy." 

We  must  admit,  therefore,  that  the  Lutheran 
Church  did  not  remain  untouched.  This  was  un- 
fortunate. For  surely  the  method  of  the  revivalist  is 
not  in  harmony  with  Lutheran  teaching.  Says  Dr. 
Nevin :  "A  low  Pelagianizing  theory  runs  through  it 
from  beginning  to  the  end."  It  is  Arminian,  and  is 
based  on  the  denial  of  the  Scriptural  truth  that  it 
is  God  who  converts  the  human  heart.  (Article  V. 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession.)  By  artificial  means 
(sensational  sermons,  enraptured  prayers,  hysterical 


§    9.''  ABERRATIONS.  Ill 

songs  and  stirring  appeals)  the  revival  preacher  aims 
to  replace  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  force 
the  new  birth.  ~'^  Naturally  enough,  religious  instruc- 
tion lost  its  importance.  The  Catechism  was  neg- 
lected. People  spoke  with  more  or  less  scorn  of 
"head  Christians,"  "memory  Christians"  and  "Cate- 
chism Christians."  Since  many  Lutheran  congrega- 
tions took  part  in  these  revivals  and  since  Lutheran 
ministers  often  acted  as  revival  preachers,  the  ten- 
dency of  the  movement  was  toward  unionization  of 
the  churches.  The  books  of  Baxter,  Bunyan,  Wesley, 
Edwards,  Howe  and  Dwight  replaced  Lutheran  lit- 
erature, and  created  a  taste  which  could  be  satisfied 
only  when  the  sermon  harmonized  with  the  ideals 
of  Methodism. 

The  English  Lutheran  Church  was  caught  in  this 
current.  The  German  Lutherans  were  not  so  greatly 
affected.  It  is  natural  that  the  majority  of  the  Eng- 
lish Lutherans  were  members  of  the  deneral  Synod, 
simply  because  the  larger  number  of  English  Lu- 
therans lielonged  to  this  body.  However,  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  men  who  later  founded  the 
General  Council  were  no  exceptions.  Even  a  man  like 
Dr.  Passavant  in  that  day  carried  "the  new  meas- 
ures" to  an  extreme.  ''  For  many  years  the  synodical 
reports  spoke  of  congregational  awakenings  and  of 
"ingatherings  from  the  world."  A  very  \ivid  picture 
of  such  a  revival  (1839)  is  given  by  Dr.  S.  L.  Harkey. 
himself  an  ardent  advocate  of  this  method.    He  savs : 


"■Most  of  these  revival  services  display  the  driving  method.  Where 
they  merely  offered  the  Gospel,  the  Lord  no  doubt  has  blessed  them 
with   His   Spirit. 

"So  his  biotjraphcr,  Dr.  G.  H.  Cerberding,  says  in  "Life  and  Let- 
ters of  W.  A.   Passavant,"  p.  99. 


112  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §    9," 

"One  of  the  most  remarkable  demonstrations  of  which 
I  have  ever  heard  occurred  at  this  synodical  con- 
vention. ...  In  an  instant  every  soul  in  the  house 
was  upon  the  knees,  and  remained  there  weeping  and 
praying  for  mercy."  Again  we  read  in  the  protocol 
of  the  synod :  "Silence  reigned  through  the  house, 
save  the  speaker's  voice  only,  and  here  and  there  a 
half  suppressed  sigh  or  groan,  which  burst  involun- 
tarily forth  from  the  breasts  of  deeply  convicted  sin- 
ners. The  whole  congregation  became  more  or  less 
moved.  The  place  became  truly  awful  and  glorious, 
and  it  seemed  that  the  time  had  come  when  a  decided 
effort  must  be  made  upon  the  kingdom  of  darkness, 
and  that  under  such  circumstances  to  shrink  from 
the  task  and  through  fear  of  producing  a  little  tem- 
porary disorder,  to  refuse  to  go  heartily  into  the  work 
would  have  been  nothing  short  of  downright  spiritual 
murder.  This  meeting  continued  until  it  was  neces- 
sary to  give  place  for  the  transaction  of  synodical 
business.  But  the  tardy  movements  of  the  people, 
and  especially  of  the  distressed,  and  their  lingering 
looks  as  they  withdrew,  clearly  indicated  that  they 
felt  themselves  still  unwilling  to  leave  the  house  of 
the  Lord."  Another  writer  adds :  "At  one  time  dur- 
ing the  meeting  it  was  found  necessary  to  invite  the 
mourners  to  withdraw  from  the  church  and  remove 
to  the  parsonage  that  the  synod  might  have  an  op- 
portunity to  proceed  to  its  close  with  the  transaction 
of  the  business  before  it." 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  by  the  methods  of  re- 
vivalism the  General  Synod  received  many  new  mem- 
bers who  afterwards  acquired  an  appreciation  of 
Lutheran  teaching.  But  the  end  does  not  always 
justify  the  means.    As  a  whole,  the  movement  proved 


§    9.'  ABERRATIONS.  II3 

detrimental     to     the     development    of    the     English 
Lutheran  Church  of  America.  ''• 

3.  "A  Luthersuiism  modified  by  the  Puritan  ele- 
ment" We  now  come  to  another  misstep  recorded 
in  the  annals  of  the  General  Synod.  The  two  ex- 
tremes with  which  the  General  Synod  (rapidly  be- 
coming anglicized)  came  in  constant  contact  were 
American  Puritanism  and  German  indifTerentism.  ''^ 
That  of  these  two  extremes  it  preferred  the  former 
is  readily  understood  when  we  consider  the  religious 
earnestness  of  the  Puritans,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  worldly,  unchurchly  attitude  of  cultured  Ger- 
mans, on  the  other.  For  the  great  goal  of  the 
founders  of  the  General  Synod  had  been  personal 
piety  and  the  propagation  of  a  positive  theology. 
This  goal  had  been  consistently  kept  in  view.  Thus 
when  the  abuse  of  alcoholic  drinks,  which  character- 
ized the  life  of  anti-religious  circles,  was  opposed  by 
temperance  movements,  ^*  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee 
on  which  side  of  the  struggle  the  General  Synod  would 
take  its  stand.  Also  regarding  the  observance  of  the 
Sunday,  "  it  joined  hands  with  the  Puritans.     In  both 

"Dr.  Bauslin,  ut  supra,  p.  371. 
"German  immigration  was  greatly  stimulated  by  the  exodus  from 
Germany  of  the  Revolutionists  of  1848.  They  had  left  Germany  for 
political  reasons,  and  now  often  combined  with  their  political  radical- 
ism a  revolutionary  attitude  to  matters  of  religion,  because  in  the 
Fatherland  they  had  observed  that  the  altars  supported  the  thrones. 
The  (lerman  press,  which  in  many  of  the  larger  cities  came  under  the 
influence  of  those  highly  educated  forty-eighters,  also  carried  on  a 
campaign  against  living  Christianity,  in  which  they  could  see  nothing 
but  cant  and  hypocricy,  while  German  societies,  such  as  "Turner"  and 
"Gesangvereine"  were  generally  anti-religious. 

■*  Minutes    of    Convention    of    General    Synod,    Baltimore,    Md.,    1833. 
See   Ev.    Review,   p.  256. 

■»  Review,   V,  2ti6,  270.     Minutes   of  Conventions  of  1842,   and   1845   at 
Baltimore    and    Philadelphia,    etc. 
7 


114  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §   9,' 

cases  it  opposed  the  Germans.  Thus  it  gradually 
leaned  toward  Puritanism,  with  which  it  also  shared 
the  English  language.  A  Lutheranism  modified  by 
Puritan  elements  was  looked  upon  as  being  desirable 
for  America.  In  this  sense  we  speak  of  an  "Ameri- 
can Lutheranism." 

We  now  arrive  at  a  period  when  the  intimate  re- 
lations of  the  General  Synod  to  the  other  denomina- 
tions were  to  bear  fruit.  The  distinctive  doctrines 
of  Lutheranism  had  become  obscured.  The  develop- 
ment might  be  traced  in  the  doctrinal  evolution  of  a 
man  like  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker.  At  the  time  of  the 
founding  of  the  General  Synod,  then  quite  a  young 
men,  he  belonged  to  the  most  conservative  class  of 
his  contemporaries.  '^  But  eventually  we  find  him  not 
only  an  enthusiastic  advocate  of  the  "Evangelical  Al- 
liance," but  author  of  an  elaborate  and  compre- 
hensive scheme  of  an  "Apostolic  Protestant  Union," 
with  the  following  features :  "Unity  of  name ;  unity 
in  fundamental  doctrines, "'  while  diversity  in  non- 
essentials (sic)  was  conceded ;  mutual  acknowledg- 
ment of  each  other's  acts  of  discipline ;  sacramental 
and  ministerial  inter-communion ;  convention  of  the 
different  churches  of  the  land  in  synod  or  council 
for  mutual  consultation  or  ecclesiastical  regulation." 
This  was  endorsed  by  the  General  Synod  at  its  meet- 
ing in  New  York,  1848. 

The  worst  blunder  of  this  kind,  however,  is  con- 
tained in  a  letter  forwarded  (1845)  by  a  committee 
of  the  General  Synod  to  the  Church  in  Germany. 
The  letter  says :    "In  most  of  our  church  principles 


'*  See  biographical  notes,   §  9. 
"  Compare  our  remarks,  §  9,  1. 


§    9/  ABERRATIONS.  II5 

we  stand  on  common  ground  with  the  Union  Church 
of  Germany.  The  distinctive  doctrines  which  sep- 
arate the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  churches  we 
do  not  consider  essential.  The  tendency  of  the  so- 
called  old  Lutheran  party  seems  to  us  to  be  behind 
the  times.  Luther's  peculiar  views  concerning  the 
presence  of  the  Lord's  body  in  the  communion  have 
long  been  abandoned  by  the  majority  of  our  ministers." 
(Spaeth,  C.  P.  Krauth  I,  333.)  While  this  letter  was 
forwarded  without  the  sanction  of  the  General  Synod, 
it  was  signed  by  the  following  representative  men : 
S.  S.  Schmucker,  J.  G.  Morris,  H.  J.  Schmidt,  H.  N. 
Pohlman,  B.  Kurtz.  Who  would  think  it  possible  that 
these  men  would  all  sign  so  radical  a  letter?  Dr. 
Schmidt,  then  a  member  of  the  New  York  Minis- 
terium,  author  of  a  volume  on  "The  Doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper"  and  of  valuable  contributions  to  the 
"Evangelical  Review,"  was  soon  a  most  pronounced 
opponent  of  the  Definite  Synodical  Platform,  and 
wrote  to  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth,  Sen.,  as  follows:  "The 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  is  so  completely 
interwoven  with  our  whole  view  of  the  scheme  of 
salvation  and  redemption ;  that  concerning  the  Eu- 
charist grows  so  directly  and  necessarily  out  of  the 
great  doctrine  of  Christ's  person  that  for  me  to  give 
up  those  doctrinal  points,  alleged  to  be  non-essential, 
is  to  give  up  all,  to  give  up  the  whole  Gospel."^* 
Nor  did  Dr.  Morris  share  the  view  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  stated  in  that  letter  to  Germany.  ^°  He 
characterized  it  as  "the  greatest  blunder  ever  com- 
mitted."     Only    Drs.    Schmucker    and    Kurtz    really 

"Spaeth.   C.    P.    K.    I.   363. 

'*  See    his   book,    "Fifty    Years    in    the    Lutheran    Ministry." 


Il6  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §   9," 

agreed  with  the  tenets  of  that  circular;  the  others 
must  have  signed  their  names  thoughtlessly.  Further- 
more, since  the  letter  before  sending  it  was  never  sub- 
mitted to  the  General  Synod,  but  was  the  expression 
merely  of  a  committee,  this  body  cannot  seriously 
be  held  responsible  for  its  contents.  *°  But  together 
with  other  documents  of  a  similar  nature,  that  cir- 
cular reveals  the  fact  that  there  were  men  in  the 
General  Synod  who  aimed  at  "a  Lutheranism  modi- 
fied by  the  Puritan  element." 

We  have  tried  to  show  (§  9,  1)  what  caused  this 
development.  We  referred  to  the  lack  of  an  English 
Lutheran  literature ;  to  the  influence  on  American 
thought  of  the  Prussian  Union ;  to  the  fellow-feeling 
with  non-Lutheran  churches ;  to  the  Methodist  re- 
vivals ;  to  the  anti-religious  character  of  Germans 
controlled  by  the  immigrants  of  1848,  which,  by  way 
of  reaction,  caused  the  men  of  the  General  Synod 
to  choose  this  Puritan  type  of  religion.  But  to  all 
these  causes  we  must  add  another  —  the  reaction 
against  a  movement. 

A  whole  series  of  circumstances,  which  we  shall 
presently  enumerate,  worked  together  toward  the 
originating  within  the  General  Synod  of  a  party  which 
in  its  confessional  rigidity  exceeded  indeed  the  Lu- 
theranism on  which  the  General  Synod  had  been 
founded.    The  'fennessee  Synod  had  always,  although 


"•Vs.  J.  T.  Grosse,  "Unterscheidungslehren,"  St.  Louis,  1909,  p.  66. 
To  quote  this  case,  which  has  merely  historical  value,  as  an  expression 
of  the  General  Synod  is  absolutely  unfair.  It  is  merely  the  action  of  a 
committee,  and  the  contents  of  that  letter  mean  less  than,  for  instance, 
the  resolutions  passed  at  one  time  by  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  and 
Pennsylvania  Synod  regarding  a  union  with  the  Reformed.  Since  these 
tendencies  have  changed,  they  admit  of  no  polemical  use.  They  are 
merely  matters   of  record,   of  interest   for  the  historian. 


§    9,^  ABERRATIONS.  1 17 

at  times  not  in  the  most  tactful  manner,  insisted  on 
the  importance  of  a  confessional  Lutheranism  (§  7,  2). 
The  Henkels  translated  the  Book  of  Concord  into 
English.  The  Buffalo  Synod  (§  30)  was  founded  in 
1845,  the  Missouri  Synod  (§  21)  in  1847.  Walther 
edited  the  "Lutheraner,"  the  contents  of  which  were 
made  the  subject  of  general  discussion  causing  many 
to  realize  that  the  historical  platform  of  Lutheranism 
had  been  abandoned.  From  1842  until  1866  Pastor 
Loehe  of  Neuendettelsau  published  the  "Kirchliche 
Mitteilungen  aus  und  ueber  Nord-Amerika."  This 
monthly  not  only  contained  news  about  mission 
work  in  Ohio  and  the  work  of  men  like  Wyneken,  but 
undertook  to  criticise  the  un-Lutheran  character  of 
the  General  Synod  and  to  laud  the  rising  party  of 
conservative  Lutherans.  Says  Dr.  Jacobs  :  *^  "Even 
though  this  journal  sometimes  was  misled  in  its  po- 
lemics, and  fell  into  error  from  the  natural  tendency 
of  those  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  field  to  give 
accurate  reports,  it  could  not  fail  to  influence  the 
progress  of  events  in  this  country."  The  writings 
of  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth,  later  compiled  in  the 
"Conservative  Reformation."  stirred  the  Lutheran 
world  (see  biographical  note).  Important  was  also 
the  translation  of  Schmid's  Doctrinal  Theology.  The 
reaction  against  the  Prussian  L^nion.  originating  in 
Breslau  (Prof.  Scheibel),  inspired  thousands  of  pens 
and  greatly  affected  American  Lutheran  ministers  who 
were  able  to  read  German.  The  writings  of  Hengsten- 
berg,  Sartorius,  Rudelbach,  Guericke.  Thomasius,  Har- 
less  and  Kliefoth  were  eagerly  read  and  republished 
in  the  Evangelical  Review.  Some  young  theologians, 
trained  in  this  school,  arrived  from  Germanv  and  as- 


"  History,    p.    419. 


Il8  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §    9,^ 

sumed  leadership  even  in  the  synods  of  the  General 
Synod.  One  benefit  resulting  from  the  close  alliance 
between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  of  that 
time  was  the  strong  stand  taken  by  the  Reformed 
against  Methodistic  revivalism,  which  had  caused  such 
a  commotion  in  Pennsylvania  (the  "Mercerburg  the- 
ology"). ^^  An  instreaming  immigration  filled  the 
emptied  churches  with  sound  Lutheran  stock.  Dr. 
Phil.  SchafiF,  though  himself  Reformed,  spoke  during 
a  course  of  lectures,  delivered  at  a  convention  in 
Frankfort  (1845),  of  a  left  wing  in  the  General  Synod 
and  also  of  salutary  influences  exerted  by  the  Lu- 
theran ministers  of  the  Eastern  States  who  had 
studied  German  theology.  This  remark  about  "a  left 
wing  in  the  General  Synod"  made  a  painful  impres- 
sion in  America  on  those  who  had  hitherto  considered 
Dr.  Schaff  an  advocate  of  American  Lutheranism. 
The  "Deutscher  Kirchenfreund,"  edited  by  Schaff 
(1848)  and  continued  by  Rev.  W.  J.  Mann,  although 
an  organ  for  German-American  churches,  proved  a 
valuable  support  to  the  Evangelical  Review,  ®^  and 
a  mighty  stronghold  against  the  extravagances  which 
threatened  to  demoralize  the  Lutherans  .  as  well  as 
the  Reformed.  All  these  factors  contributed  toward 
creating  and  strengthening  a  conservative  Lutheran 
party  within  the  General  Synod. 

The  leading  spirits  in  the  General  Synod  reacted 
agfainst  this  movement.     Under  influences  which  we 


^  We  have  especially  in  mind  Dr.  Nevin's  book  on  "The  Anxious 
Bench,"  1843.  Says  Dr.  Jacobs:  "The  debt  of  gratitude  which  was  due 
him  for  this  and  other  efforts  found  a  formal  expression  when  Dr. 
C.  P.  Krauth,  Jr.,  introduced  him  to  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 
in   session   at   Lancaster,   Pa.,   1874." 

83  Jacobs'  History,  p.  417. 


§    9.*  ABERRATIONS. 


119 


have  previously  described,  these  had  developed  in  an 
opposite    direction.      Reared    in    the    atmosphere    of 
revivalism  and  closely  associating  with  Puritan  cir- 
cles, their  ideal  of  piety  had  gradually  become  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  Lutheran  Church.     Nor  was 
it  in  harmony  with  that  of  Muhlenberg.     His  piety 
was  that  of  the  finest  types  of  German  Pietism   (§ 
4,  8),  while  the  new  liberals  were  drawing  their  in- 
spiration from  English  models  like  Baxter,  Bunyan, 
Wesley,  Edwards,  Howe  and  Dwight.     The  vigorous 
polemics  of  the  rising  Missouri  Synod,  which  were 
prototyped  by  those  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  and  now 
carried  on  in  the  "Eutheraner,"  edited  by  Prof.  Wal- 
ther,  served  the  party  of  "American  Eutheranism"  as 
a   constant   warning   against   an   ultra   conservatism. 
They  frequently  referred  to  the  "Symbolists"  within 
and  without  the  General  Synod  and  pictured  them  as 
extremists   of  the  most  dangerous  sort.     They  per- 
suaded  themselves    that    the    Eutheranism    imported 
from   Germany   was    largely   colored    with   local  pe- 
culiarities  which  should  be  abandoned  on  American 
soil.     Their  ideal  was  the  establishment  of  a  home- 
made product.     Thus   they  presented  a   program  to 
the  General  Synod  which  insisted  on  a  Eutheranism 
seasoned  with  the  leading  views  of  the  surrounding 
denominations.     The  leaders  in  this  movement  were 
particularly    Schmucker,    Sprecher    and    Kurtz,    with 
their  great   influence   upon  the   Eutheran  Church  of 
that  day.  ^* 

"  The  strong  organ  of  the  Liberals  was  the  Lutheran  Observer. 
The  "Symbolists"  spoke  through  the  columns  of  the  Ev.  Review,  edited 
for  a  long  time  by  Dr.  Charles  Phillip  Krauth,  professor  at  Gettys- 
burs;  also  through  the  Lutheran  and  Missionary,  edited  by  his  son, 
Charles   Porterfield   Krauth. 


I20  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §   9,^ 

"American  Lutheranism"  and  its  critics.  Says 
Dr.  W.  J.  Mann  in  the  "Deutscher  Kirchenfreund :" 
"Gradually  a  desire  manifested  itself  to  gain  popu- 
larity for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country.  The 
hard  dogmatical  knots  of  the  old  Lutheran  oak  were 
to  give  way  under  the  Puritan  plane.  The  body  was 
deprived  of  its  bones  and  its  heart,  and  the  empty 
skin  might  be  filled  with  whatever  was  most  pleas- 
ing, if  only  the  Lutheran  name  was  retained.  The 
statement  of  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, that  'unto  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  it 
is  not  necessary  that  human  traditions,  rites  or  cere- 
monies, instituted  by  men  should  be  everywhere 
alike,'  was  most  extensively  used,  and  in  the  desire 
to  make  the  Lutheran  Church  as  much  as  possible 
like  others,  her  leaders  were  much  more  ready  to 
adopt  foreign  elements  than  to  retain  her  own  dis- 
tinctive features.  Thus  the  liturgy,  the  ancient  les- 
sons of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  the  festivals  of  the 
Church  Year,  the  gown  and  other  usages  were  given 
up,  in  order  that  as  little  as  possible  might  be  seen 
of  these  Lutheran  peculiarities.  Hoping  to  gain  others, 
they  lost  themselves.  The  Lutheran  Church  had  given 
away  her  own  spirit,  her  own  original  life  and  char- 
acter." ^^  Prof.  W.  M.  Reynolds,  writing  to  Dr. 
Krauth,  characterizes  "American  Lutheranism"  as  a 
"kind  of  mongrel  Methodistic  Presbyterianism."  ^® 
Such  harsh  criticisms  were  plentiful  during  this  period. 

Yet  we  feel  that  there  should  be  a  word  of  apology 
for  the  fathers  of  the  General  Synod.     It  is  not  fair 

8°  Kirchenfreund,  VIII,  p.  386  sq.  Translation  after  Dr.  Spaeth  in 
C.  P.  K.,  I,  354  sq. 

8«  Spaeth,  C.  P.  K.,  I,  179. 


§    9.'  ABERRATIONS.  121 

to  speak  contemptuously  of  those  men,  as  has  be- 
come the  custom  in  many  quarters,  for  they  were  ab- 
solutely sincere.  They  had  convictions  which  were 
perfectly  in  harmony  with  their  training,  "  their  time 
and  their  environment.  The  question  how  Lutheran- 
ism  can  have  a  national  development  on  American 
soil  and  how  it  can  adjust  itself  to  its  environment, 
is  even  to-day  a  problem  for  our  Eng-lish  speaking  Lu- 
therans. ®®  It  was  certainly  not  surprising  that  the 
leaders  of  the  General  Synod  at  a  time  when  large 
parts  of  the  Lutheran  Church  became  English,  con- 
sidered the  question,  especially  at  the  time  of  union- 
ism in  the  Fatherland,  whether  it  was  not  the  sacred 
duty  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country  to  ac- 
commodate itself  to  the  American  spirit  by  making 
some  concessions  to  the  teaching  of  the  surrounding 
denominations. 

They  made  a  misstep  by  discarding  historical  Lu- 
theranism.  But  if  Schmucker  and  his  colleagues  had 
succeeded  in  avoiding  their  mistake,  their  very  policy 
would  have  been  tried  by  others  some  time  in  the 
history  of  our  Church,  because  of  a  real  problem 
present.  In  this  sense  these  men  have  done  a  ser- 
vice to  the  Church.  We  have  learned  from  their 
mistake.  This  opinion  is  also  shared  by  Dr.  Mann, 
whose  article  in  the  "Kirchenfreund"  continues  thus : 
"The  more  we  study  the  history  of  Lutheranism  in 
this  country  the  more  natural  appear  the  different 
stages  of  its  development.     No  one  is  particularly  to 


"There  being  no  Lutheran  seminary,  Dr.  Schmucker  received  his 
theoloprical    training   at    Princeton. 

"*  See  J.  L.  Neve,  "Lutheranism  in  America  and  the  Problem  of  its 
Accommodation  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  Spirit,"  in  the  second  number  of 
the   American   Lutheran   Survey,   Nov.   2,   1914. 


122  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §    Q,^ 

blame.  The  age  and  its  tendencies  fully  explain  it. 
Least  of  all  should  we  belittle  the  merit  of  those 
men  who,  by  establishing  educational  institutions  for 
the  Lutheran  Church,  tried  to  make  sure  of  its  future 
progress.  It  was  a  beginning  such  as  circumstances 
permitted.  But  whosoever  will  at  this  time  refuse 
to  unite  with  the  change  for  the  better  which  has 
taken  place  or  oppose  the  recovered  self-respect  of 
Lutheranism,  its  God-given  individuality  —  he  is  guilty 
indeed."  ^^ 

The  Definite  Platform.  In  September,  1855,  a 
document  was  published  entitled,  "Definite  Synodical 
Platform,"  which,  when  closely  viewed,  was  a  re- 
cension of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  its  preface 
the  ministers  of  different  synods  were  requested  to 
accept  this  "Platform"  as  their  confessional  basis. 
Though  published  anonymously,  it  was  soon  known 
that  the  three  men  mentioned  above,  especially  the 
first  professor  at  Gettysburg,  were  its  authors.  This 
revised  edition  of  the  Augustana,  in  connection  with 
the  preface  given,  presented  an  appeal  to  adopt  the 
platform  of  an  "American  Lutheranism"  that  haci 
ridded  itself  of  some  errors  said  to  be  contained  in 
the  old  historical  document.  The  sanction  of  cere- 
monies during  the  Mass  is  struck  from  the  24th  ar- 
ticle of  the  Augustana.  This  was  absurd,  because  by 
Mass  in  that  article  Melanchthon  simply  meant  the 
Communion  service  purified  from  the  Roman  abuses. 
Eliminated  from  Article  II  was  the  sentence  stating 
that  the  new  birth  takes  place  through  Baptism  and 
the  Holy  Ghost;    from  Article  VIII  the  declaration 


"•In  the  "Deutscher  Kirchenfreund,"  also  in  Spaeth's  "W.  J.  Mann, 
Erinnerungsblaetter,"  157. 


§    9»''  ABERRATIONS.  123 

that  the  blessings  of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  not  de- 
pendent on  the  worthiness  of  the  officiating  minister; 
from  Article  IX  the  statement  that  through  Baptism 
grace  is  offered.  Article  X  reads  in  its  revised  edi- 
tion :  "In  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  they  teach 
that  Christ  is  present  with  the  communicants  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  'under  the  emblem  of  bread  and  wine.'  " 
(A  foot-note  called  attention  to  the  last  phrase  as  be- 
ing the  German  reading,  but  the  German  has  also  the 
truly  present,  "wahrhaftiglich  .  .  .  gegenwaertig," 
and  it  says  of  the  true  body  and  blood  that  they  are 
distributed  and  received).  Article  XI  had  been  dropped 
entirely  because  it  commended  private  confession. 

The  Origin  of  the  Definite  Platform.  Even  ten 
years  previous  to  the  publication  of  this  document 
influential  men  in  the  General  Synod  had  thought  of 
a  condensed  platform  on  which  American  Lutheran- 
ism  could  build  its  future.  During  a  convention  of 
the  Maryland  Synod,  18-14,  Prof.  H.  L.  Baugher,  Dr. 
B.  Kurtz  and  Rev.  S.  W.  Harkey  were  appointed  a 
committee  of  three  for  the  purpose  of  forming  an 
"Abstract  of  the  Doctrines  and  Practice  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Synod  of  Maryland."  The  essential 
points  were  presented  in  fourteen  articles.  All  dis- 
tinctive Lutheran  teachings  were  omitted  or  repudi- 
ated. The  report  was  returned  to  the  committee 
and  laid  on  the  table.  ^° 

The  matter  was  submitted  to  the  convention 
of  the  General  Synod  at  Philadelphia,  1845.  Says 
"The  Evangelical  Review :"  "At  this  meeting  Drs. 
Schmucker,  Morris,  Schmidt,  Pohlman  and  Kurtz 
were   appointed   to  prepare   and   report   to   the   next 

"Spaeth,  I,  ni. 


124  "^^E    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    9,^ 

convention  a  clear  and  concise  view  of  the  doctrines 
and  practice  of  the  American  Lutheran  Church.  The 
committee  had  the  subject  under  consideration  until 
the  meeting  held  in  Charleston,  S.  C,  in  1850.  The 
report  presented  by  them  was  laid  on  the  table,  and 
they  were  discharged  from  further  duty.  The  opinion 
prevailed  among  the  committee  and  in  the  convention 
that  this  was  a  subject  upon  which  it  was  inexpedient 
to  legislate.  Differences  on  unimportant  points,  it  was 
acknowledged,  did  exist  in  the  Church,  but  it  was  not 
the  province  of  the  General  Synod  to  adopt  a  plat- 
form or  estabhsh  any  test,  which  would  necessarily 
exclude  from  its  connection  many  whose  recognition 
as  Lutherans  could  not  be  questioned."  ^^ 

Drs.  Schmucker,  Kurtz  and  Sprecher  had  a  par- 
ticularly vital  interest  in  this  confessional  "Abstract." 
The  committee,  even  before  the  document  had  been 
disposed  of  by  the  Charleston  convention,  had  sent 
a  printed  copy  of  it  to  every  pastor  of  the  General 
Synod,  inviting  them  to  express  their  opinion  by  anno- 
tations and  marginal  notes.  After  the  copies  were 
returned,  a  revised  edition,  embodying  different  sug- 
gestions, was  sent  the  second  time  for  the  purpose 
of  further  consideration.  -'-  Says  Dr.  Kurtz :  "The 
want  of  it  has  long  been  felt  and  expressed.  From 
the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  West 
we  have  been  asked  for  something  of  this  nature.  .  .  . 
We  find  no  difficulty  in  subscribing  the  document  and 
presenting  it  as  a  fair,  honest  exhibition  of  Lutheran 
doctrine  and  practice  as  understood  in  the  latitude 
in  which  we  reside ;    and  if  we  are  not  greatly  mis- 

"  Ev.  Review,  V.  269. 

^  Luth.   Observer,   Nov.   27,   1846. 


§    9,^  ABERRATIONS.  1 25 

taken,  the  great  mass  of  our  American  ministers 
throughout  the  land  would  not  make  any  material 
objection  to  it."  '■'^  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker  was  so 
pleased  with  the  "Abstract"  that  he  referred  to  it 
again  and  again  in  his  lectures  and  articles,  and  even 
made  his  students  commit  to  memory  its  principles 
and  statements  setting  forth  the  exact  tenets  of  Am- 
erican Lutheranism.  "* 

Also  Dr.  S.  Sprecher  urged  the  necessity  of  mak- 
ing a  bold  and  an  honest  statement,  in  a  writing 
of  1853  he  underscored  the  words  "a  creed  we  must 
have"  and  wrote :  "I  hope  that  this  unhappy  con- 
dition of  the  Church  will  not  continue  long,  and  that 
the  churches  of  the  General  Synod  will  do  as  the 
churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  did  in  1580  — 
exercise  their  right  to  declare  what  they  regard  as 
the  doctrines  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  regard  to 
all  the  points  in  dispute  in  the  Church.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  present  position  of  the  General  Synod 
can  long  be  maintained ;  it  will  either  result  in  the 
Old  Lutheran  men  and  synods  gaining  the  control  of 
the  General  Synod,  and  introducing  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  the  symbols  which  the  churches  in  this 
country  ought  to  abandon  ...  or  the  friends  of 
the  American  Lutheran  Church  must  define  the  doc- 
trines which  they  do  hold  and  what  they  reject,  and 
refuse  to  fraternize  with  and  to  make  themselves 
responsible  for,  and  to  give  their  influence  as  a  church 
in  favor  of  men  and  doctrines  and  practices  which 
they  hold  to  be  anti-scriptural  and  injurious  to  the 
spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ.     T  do  not  see  how  we' 


"  Luth.    Observer,    ut    supra. 

••  See    his   article   in    Ev.    Review   II,    510. 


126  THE    GENERAL    SYNOD:  §    9/ 

can  do  otherwise  than  to  adopt  the  Symbols  of  the 
Church  or  form  a  new  symbol  which  shall  embrace 
all  that  is  fundamental  to  Christianity  in  them,  re- 
jecting what  is  unscriptural  and  supplying  what  is 
defective."  ^' 

These  were  the  discussions  and  considerations  of 
the  men  representing  American  Lutheranism  at  the 
time  of  the  preparation  of  the  Definite  Platform.  Dr. 
S.  S.  Schmucker,  its  real  author,  with  his  facile  pen 
for  such  work,  gave  to  it  the  finished  form.  The 
document  appeared  anonymously,  but  according  to 
Schmucker's  own  admission  (made  ten  years  later) 
he  had  written  every  sentence  himself  and  had  merely 
submitted  it  for  approval  to  his  friend,  Dr.  Kurtz, 
immediately  before  its  publication.  ^^ 

The  Reception  of  the  Definite  Platfomn.  The 
document  found  little  response.  Only  three  small 
district  synods  in  the  Ohio  territory  accepted  it  tem- 
porarily (East  Ohio,  Olive  Branch  and  Wittenberg 
Synods).  Everywhere  else  it  was  vigorously  rejected, 
not  only  by  men  and  synods  which  afterwards  formed 
the  General  Council,  but  also  by  others  who  remained 
with  the  General  Synod.  Only  now  it  became  evi- 
dent that  the  advocates  of  American  Lutheranism 
were  few  in  number.  Dr.  Schmucker  and  his  as- 
sociates experienced  a  disappointment  from  which 
they  (with  the  exception  of  Dr.  Sprecher,  cf.  bio- 
graphical sketch)  did  not  readily  recover.     Men  who 

»'  Quoted  by  Dr.  Spaeth  in  his  Charles  Port.  Krauth,  I,  347.  A  large 
part  of  the  correspondence  between  Drs.  Schmucker  and  Sprecher  has 
gone  into  the  possession  of  the  Krauth  Memorial  Library  at  Mt.  Airy 
Seminary.     Among  these  letters  is  also  the  one  quoted. 

^  Luth.  Observer,  May  4,  1866.  Lutheran  and  Missionary,  May  10, 
1886.  Anstadt,  "Life  and  Times  of  Schmucker,"  315  sq.  Spaeth  ut  supra, 
I.  357. 


§    9,"  ABERRATIONS.  127 

every  one  expected  to  affiliate  with  American  Lu- 
theranism  condemned  the  movement  in  strongest 
lani^uag-e.  They  saw  in  it  not  only  an  attempt  to 
mutilate  the  venerable  Augsburg  Confession,  but  also 
a  plan  of  excluding  the  stricter  Lutherans  (the  "Sym- 
bolists") from  the  General  Synod. 

The  strongest  literary  refutation  was  written  by 
J.  W.  Mann,  pastor  of  the  German  Lutheran  Church 
of  Philadelphia.  It  was  entitled,  "A  Plea  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession,"  and  was  published  by  the  Gen- 
eral Synod's  Lutheran  Board  of  Publication.  Dr. 
Schmucker  opposed  to  it  his  "American  Lutheranism 
Vindicated,"  a  book  of  two  hundred  pages,  which 
the  Publication  Society  of  the  General  Synod  refused 
to  publish  and  for  which  he  had  to  find  a  private  pub- 
lisher. We  have  already  stated  that  the  General  Synod 
would  not  permit  the  committee  to  proceed  further 
with  the  "Abstract."  One  of  the  chief  objections 
persistently  urged  was  the  charge  that  the  Definite 
Platform,  once  adopted,  would  drive  from  the  General 
Synod  a  number  of  Lutherans  now  connected  with  it.  ^'' 

Among  the  refutations  of  individual  synods  we 
mention  that  of  the  East  Pennsylvania  Synod,  which 
at  its  convention  in  Lebanon,  Pa.,  passed  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  on  motion  of  Dr.  J.  A.  Brown : 
"Resolved  that  we  hereby  express  our  unqualified 
disapprobation  of  this  most  dangerous  attempt  to 
change  the  doctrinal  basis  and  revolutionize  the  ex- 
isting character  of  the  Lutheran  Churches  now  united 
in  the  General  Synod  and  that  we  hereby  most 
solemnly  warn  our  sister  synods,"  etc.     The  mover 

»'  See  H.  J.  Schmidt's  letter  to  C.  P.  Krauth,  Sen.,  published  by 
Spaeth,  C.   P.   K.,  I,  363. 


128  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD:  §   9," 

of  this  resolution  eventually  went  so  far  as  to  formu- 
late charges  against  S.  S.  Schmucker  for  heretical 
teaching  (later  also  against  Dr.  Sprecher).  And  it 
was  through  the  influence  of  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth,  Jun., 
that  these  charges  were  not  taken  up  by  the  Board  of 
Directors  at  the  Gettysburg  Seminary.  When  Dr. 
Schmucker  resigned  his  professor's  chair  in  the  sem- 
inary in  1864,  Dr.  Brown  was  elected  as  his  successor 
(see  below  foot-note  116). 

All  of  this  proves  that  the  General  Synod,  as  a 
body,  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  "Definite 
Platform."  It  is  true  that  the  mistake  was  made  by 
prominent  members  of  the  General  Synod,  but  it  is 
also  a  fact  that  the  popularity  of  these  men  suf- 
fered greatly  after  the  publication  of  the  Platform. 
Dr.  Krauth  wrote  that  this  error  consisted  in  the 
fact  that  they  "mistook  a  tendency,  half  developed, 
for  a  final  result."  »» 

Annotation.  Continued  from  Chapter  IV,  §  7,  6.  The 
first  church  papers.  The  "Evangelical  Review"  was  founded 
in  1849  by  Professor  William  M.  Reynolds  (of  the  faculty 
of  the  Pennsylvania  College  in  Gettysburg).  The  aim  of 
this  paper  was  to  oppose  the  "Lutheran  Observer"  edited 
by  Dr.  Kurtz,  and  at  that  time  serving  as  the  chief  organ 
of  the  American  Lutheranism.  Soon,  however,  Reynolds 
was  called  to  the  presidency  of  Capital  University,  Colum- 
bus, O.,  and  now  Dr.  Charles  Philip  Krauth,  of  the  Gettys- 
burg Seminary,  became  his  successor.  For  many  years  Dr. 
Charles  Philip  Krauth  impressed  upon  the  Evangelical 
Review  his  superior  personality.  This  Quarterly  was  a 
repository  of  articles  of  permanent  value.  Indeed  the 
articles  in  that  Review  seem  to  be  as  important  today  as 
they  were  when  the  first  numbers  were  issued,  at  least  for 
the  American  student  of  Lutheran  Theology.    It  served  this 

**  Dr.  Krauth's  necrological  comment  on  Dr.  Kurtz  as  editor  of 
the  Lutheran  Observer.     Spaeth,  11,  85. 


§   9  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  129 

period  as  a  bridge  between  the  Lutheran  theology  of  Ger- 
many and  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America,  so  much  in  need 
of  sound  theology  at  this  critical  period  of  transition  to  the 
English  language.""  In  1871  the  Ev.  Review  became  the 
Quarterly  Review  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and 
in  1878  the  present  "Lutheran  Quarterly".  Dr.  W.  A.  Passa- 
vant  started  the  "Missionary,"  and,  while  his  chief  interest 
was  that  of  missions,  yet,  through  the  co-operation  of  Dr. 
Krauth,  Jun.,  it  received  quite  a  theological  character.  Dr. 
Jacobs  says  that  while  his  theological  articles  were  at  the 
time  heavy  reading  for  a  weekly,  they  had  a  powerful  and 
permanent  influence  upon  the  educated  ministry.""  The 
"Lutheran  Standard",  edited  by  Dr.  Greenwald,  had  been 
with  all  mildness  but  firmness  pleading  for  fidelity  to  the 
confessions.  "The  Evangelical  Lutheran",  edited  by  Rev.  L. 
W.  Conrad  represented  the  interests  of  Springfield,  O.,  and 
the  "Olive  Branch"  published  by  Dr.  S.  W.  Harkcy,  the  in- 
terests of  the  institution  at  Springfield,  111. 

Biographical  Notes. 

Prof.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  son  of  Dr.  J.  G.  Schmucker, 
a  Pietist  of  the  Spener  school  and  chief  founder  of  the 
General  Synod,  began  his  studies  at  the  Pennsj'^lvania  Uni- 
versity and  finished  them  at  the  Presbyterian  seminary  at 
Princeton.  When  only  twenty-six  years  old,  he  was  called 
to  the  newly  founded  seminary  at  Gettysburg,  where  he 
remained  for  forty  years.  He  was  never  an  attractive 
preacher  because  he  was  too  didactical.  But  he  was  ad- 
mired for  his  tremendous  capacity  for  work.  His  literary 
activity  was  unceasing.  He  wrote  forty-four  books  and 
pamphlets.  And  never  did  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America 
have  greater  executive  talents  at  its  disposal.  With  clear 
eye  he  could  look  through  the  most  complicated  situations 
and  bring  order  out  of  chaos.     He  was  unexcelled  in  work- 


••  A  like  service  was  rendered  later  to  those  who  could  read  Ger- 
man by  the  Theologische  Monatshefte,  edited  by  Rev.  S.  K.  Brobst, 
Allentown,    Pa. 

•"Jacobs'  History,  p.  441. 


130  THE   GENERAL   SYNOD!  §   Q 

ing  out  constitutions  for  synods,  congregations  and  institu- 
tions. To  all  of  this  he  added  a  genuine  piety.  He  com- 
posed the  356th  hymn  in  the  "Wollenwebers  Gesangbuch": 
"Come  ye  sorrowing,  heavy  laden,  with  the  burden  of  your 
sins."  Through  one  of  his  writings  (1831)  he  gave  the  im- 
pulse for  the  founding  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  At  the 
first  convention  in  London  (1846)  Dr.  King  of  Ireland  called 
him  the  father  of  the  Alliance.  During  the  first  part  of  his 
pastorate  he  was  more  Lutheran  than  the  majority  of  his 
contemporaries.  This  is  illustrated  in  a  letter  which  at  the 
end  of  his  student  days  at  Princeton  he  wrote  on  a  vacation 
trip  to  his  father."^  As  an  antidote  against  the  reign  of  Ra- 
tionalism in  the  New  York  Ministerium,  he  demanded  that 
the  Augsburg  Confession  be  resurrected  and  its  articles  be 
subscribed  to  with  a  quia.  Later,  however,  when  confes- 
sional Lutheranism  came  into  its  own,  he  was  one  of  its 
strongest  opponents,  fighting  the  "Symbolists"  with  speech 
and  pen. 

Dr.  Benjamin  Kurtz,  D.  D.,  grandson  of  Pastor  J.  N. 
Kurtz  (Muhlenberg's  assistant),  born  in  1775,  was  editor  of 
the  Lutheran  Observer  (1833-61) ;  he  studied  theology 
under  Dr.  G.  Lochmann.  He  was  a  man  of  extraordinary 
talents  and  a  zealous  advocate  of  "American  Lutheranism", 
the  "New  Measures"  and  the  "Definite  Platform".  As  edi- 
tor he  exerted  a  tremendous  influence  on  a  large  portion  of 
the  American  Lutheran  Church.  All  of  his  work  was  manly. 
His  pen  was  feared.  He  never  wrote  better  than  when 
replying  to  an  attack  or  when  challenging  the  opposition. 
He  sharply  attacked  the  "Symbolists"  and  Dr.  Krauth.  He 
founded  the  Melanchthon  Synod  (§  10,  3).  For  a  short  time 
he  was  professor  at  Selinsgrove. 

Prof.  S.  Sprecher,  D.  D.,  LL.D.,  was  born  at  Williams- 
port,  Md.,  in  1810.  He  studied  under  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker 
at  Gettysburg,  and  ministered  to  the  congregations  at  Har- 
risburg,  Martinsburg  and  Chambersburg,  Pa.  From  1849  to 
1884  he  was  president  of  Wittenberg  College.  He  was  a 
teacher  of  great  ability,  having  special  talent  for  work  of 


Anstadt,    Life   and   Times   of   Schmucker,   p.   61   sq. 


§    9  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  I3I 

a  philosophic  and  systematic  character.  "The  Groundwork 
of  a  System  of  Evangelical  Lutheran  Theology",  though 
written  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  "Definite  Synodical  Plat- 
form", is  his  most  important  contribution  to  Lutheran  liter- 
ature. Later,  after  years  of  retirement  and  physical  suf- 
fering in  San  Diego,  Cal.,  he  revoked,  to  a  large  extent,  his 
former  position.  In  the  "Lutheran  Evangelist"  he  says:  "It 
is  true  that  I  did  once  think  the  Definite  Synodical  Plat- 
form—  that  modification  of  Lutheranism  which  perhaps  has 
been  properly  called  the  culmination  of  Melanchthonianism 
—  desirable  and  practical,  and  that  I  now  regard  all  such 
modification  of  our  creed  as  hopeless.  In  the  meantime  an 
increased  knowledge  of  the  spirit,  methods  and  literature 
of  the  Missouri  Synod  has  convinced  me  that  such  altera- 
tions are  undesirable;  that  the  elements  of  true  Pietism  — 
that  a  sense  of  the  necessity  of  personal  religion  and  the 
importance  of  personal  assurance  of  salvation — can  be  main- 
tained in  connection  with  a  Lutheranism  unmodified  by  the 
Puritan  element."  (See  "Lutheran  Evangelist,"  May  1,  1891. 
Also,  Trial  of  L.  A.  Gotwald,  p.  72.)  Dr.  Sprecher  combined 
with  a  frail  body  a  very  great  mind.  He  died  in  1906,  having 
reached  the  age  of  ninety-five  years. 

Prof.  Chas.  Phillip  Krauth,  D.  D.,  born  in  1797,  was  the 
father  of  a  still  greater  son,  the  Rev.  Chas.  Porterfield 
Krauth.  His  fine  talents  he  placed  in  the  service  of  the 
Church,  partly  as  editor  of  the  Evangelical  Review  and 
partly  as  Professor  at  Gettysburg.  In  1834  he  was  elected 
president  of  Pennsylvania  College.  After  1850  he  devoted 
himself  exclusively  (though  continuing  as  editor  of  the  Ev. 
Review)  to  his  work  in  the  seminary.  Theologically  he  was 
classed  among  the  conservative  Lutherans.  He  held,  how- 
ever, that  a  united  Lutheran  Church  of  America  could  be 
hoped  for  only  on  the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
leaving  freedom  to  all  to  accept  of  the  rest  of  symbolical 
writings  what  they  pleased.  An  aristocratic  style  charac- 
terizes his  literary  activity.     He  died  May  30,  1867. 

Prof.   Charles    Porterfield   Krauth,   D.   D.,   L.L.D.,   son    of 

the  former,  was  born  in  1823  and  died  in  1883.  He  was  edu- 
cated for  the  ministry  at   Pennsylvania  College  and  at  the 


132  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  §    9 

theological  seminary  at  Gettysburg.  A  careful  study  of 
church  history  and  dogmatics  gave  him  a  fine  appreciation 
of  historical  Lutheranism.  While  the  battle  was  raging 
about  the  "Definite  Synodical  Platform",  he  was  in  the 
midst  of  his  theological  development,  which  cannot  be  con- 
sidered finished  before  1865.  He  fought  "American  Luther- 
anism," and  his  critical  contributions  to  the  "Missionary", 
to  the  "Evangelical  Review"  and  afterwards  to  the  "Lu- 
theran and  Alissionary"  greatlj^  helped  to  clear  the  theo- 
logical atmosphere  and  strengthen  the  cause  of  conserva- 
tive Lutheranism.  After  reading  one  of  these  fine  literary 
productions,  his  opponent,  Dr.  Kurtz  exclaimed,  in  the  "Lu- 
theran Observer":  "How  many  such  articles  would  it  take 
to  convert  a  soul?  Poor  Charley!  What  a  prostitution  of 
talent !"""  In  1861  he  became  editor  of  the  "Lutheran  and 
Missionary",  and  in  1864  Professor  of  theology  at  the  newlj- 
founded  seminary  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  in  Philadel- 
phia (§  20,  1 ;  §  9,  3).  He  was  one  of  those  who,  with  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  left  the  General  Sjmod  (§  10, 
3).  Dr.  Spaeth  has  written  his  biography  in  two  volumes 
entitled  "Charles  Porterfield  Krauth"  (General  Council  Pub- 
lication House,  Philadelphia,  1909).  Krauth  was  a  volumin- 
ous writer.  His  mental  activity  was  indefatigable.  Note- 
worthy among  his  writings  are  Fleming's  "Vocabulary  of 
Philosophj^"  edited  with  Introduction,  etc.  (Philadelphia, 
1860;  New  York,  Sheldon  &  Co.,  1878):  Berkeley's  "Prin- 
ciples, Prolegomena",  etc.  (Philadelphia,  1874).  We  should 
also  mention  his  "Augsburg  Confession,  translated  with  In- 
troduction, Notes,  and  Index"  (Philadelphia,  1868).  Of  high- 
est importance  is  his  work,  "The  Conservative  Reformation 
and  its  Theology"  (Philadelphia,  J.  B.  Lippincott  &  Co., 
1872),  which,  in  spite  of  its  imperfect  form  —  it  consists  of 
a  series  of  articles  —  will  influence  Lutheran  thought  in 
America  for  years  to  come. 

Prof.  J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Lancaster  co., 
Pa.,  in  1821.  Descending  from  the  Quakers,  as  an  unbap- 
tized  youth,  he  came  to  Gettysburg  (1841),  where  he  entered 
the    senior   class   of   the    college.     He   was   baptized   in   the 


"»  Spaeth,  C.  P.  K.,  I,  179. 


§    lO  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  1 33 

Presbyterian  Church.  His  nu-ntal  gifts  were  extraordinary. 
He  graduated  from  college  in  1842,  and  became  a  teacher. 
He  continued  his  studies,  and  served  the  congregations  of 
Baltimore,  York  and  Reading.  In  1859  he  was  called  to 
Newberry  College,  S.  C,  as  professor  of  theology.  He  left 
there  during  the  Civil  War,  his  sympathies  being  with  the 
North.  In  1864  he  became  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker's  successor 
at  Gettysburg.  He  was  an  able  preacher,  an  enthusiastic 
teacher,  a  discerning  writer  and  a  strong  public  debater.  In 
1879  he  had  a  paralytic  stroke,  and  died  in  1882. 


§  10.     Disruption  of  the  General  Synod  and  Origin  of 
the  General  CounciL 

Introductory  Review.  The  publication  of  the  Def- 
inite Platform  was  a  serious  blow  to  American  Lu- 
theranism.  Its  advocates  did  not  win  the  applause 
they  had  looked  for.  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker  especially 
lost  much  of  his  former  prestige.  The  conservative 
wing,  on  the  other  hand,  felt  encouraged,  and  saw  in 
the  events  that  had  taken  place  an  indication  that 
the  Lutheranism  of  the  future  would  increasingly 
adhere  to  historical  traditions.  But  the  "Dehnite 
Platform"  theology  had  been  stimulated  for  more 
than  a  decade  by  co-operation  of  pulpit,  press  and 
seminary,  and  by  many  measures  that  had  been  passed 
at  synodical  conventions.  Externally  viewed,  the  sit- 
uation seemed  to  take  a  favorable  turn.  Dr.  Kurtz 
resigned  the  editorship  of  the  "Lutheran  Observer" 
(1861).  In  1864  Dr.  Schmucker  resigned  his  pro- 
fessorship at  Gettysburg,  and  Dr.  Brown,  his  strong 
opponent,  became  his  successor. 

But  in  reality  things  were  little  improved.  A 
glance  at  the  articles  published  in  the  Lutheran  Ob- 


134  DISRUPTION    OF   THE   GENERAL   SYNOD.  §    10 

server  of  this  period  will  make  this  painfully  clear. 
While  the  Definite  Platform  had  been  rejected,  its 
spirit  continued  to  permeate  theology.  Liberals 
played  fast  and  loose  with  essentials  and  non-es- 
sentials, and  carried  this  old  method  of  shifting  is- 
sues into  the  heart  of  the  Augustana.  It  was  left  to 
the  individual  to  decide  which  doctrines  were  funda- 
mental and  which  non-fundamental.  Only  those  fea- 
tures in  the  Augustana  were  retained  which  were  held 
in  common  by  all  denominations.  The  aim  was  to 
unite  all  Lutherans  in  America  on  a  basis  of  suf- 
ficient breadth.  The  word  "Unaltered,"  as  appUed 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  was  not  tolerated  be- 
cause it  seemed  to  clip  the  wings  of  a  liberalizing 
Melanchthonianism.  The  Formula  of  Concord  and  all 
other  Lutheran  symbols,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Luther's  Small  Catechism,  were  excluded  from  theo- 
logical consideration.  To  show  that  the  acceptance 
of  the  whole  Book  of  Concord  did  not  settle  con- 
troversies, the  Liberals  pointed  to  the  contentions  of 
the  Old  Lutherans  (Missouri,  Buffalo,  Iowa  Synods), 
who  had  not  arrived  at  the  much-sought  harmony, 
although  adopting  all  the  symbolical  writings.  A 
broad  basis  was  demanded  on  the  ground  that  not 
only  would  Liberals  find  it  satisfactory,  but  the 
Symbolists  also  would  find  room  for  their  views 
on  such  a  platform.  It  would,  of  course,  be  required 
of  them  that  they  should  not  enter  upon  controversy 
with  their  more  liberal  brethren.  The  Lutheran  Ob- 
server (August  4,  1865),  demanding  a  Lutheranism 
broad  enough  to  embrace  both  parties,  would  have 
each  vitalize  and  bless  the  other  and  supply  mutual 
defects. 


§    10  ORIGIN    OF   THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I3S 

But  such  a  policy  is  not  practical  under  free- 
church  conditions.  It  might  work  in  a  country  like 
Germany,  where  State  and  Church  are  united  and 
where  contrary  currents  are  held  in  the  same  channel 
by  the  strong  arm  of  the  government,  although  even 
there  the  attempted  amalgamation  of  heterogeneous 
elements  has  only  produced  separate  societies  exist- 
ing alongside  of  each  other.  But  surely  in  the  land 
of  free  churches  water  and  oil  would  not  mix.  To 
demand  that  the  "Symbolist"  should  not  form  a 
party  with  men  of  congenial  mind  in  defence  of  his 
convictions  is  not  only  impossible,  but  unjust  and 
unchristian.  ^"^ 

It  was,  therefore,  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world  that  a  smaller  confessional  party  formed  itself 
within  the  General  Synod,  which  stood  opposed  to 
the  majority.  Stimulated  by  outside  influences  and 
strengthened  by  its  victory  over  the  Definite  Plat- 
form, it  employed  the  brainiest  theologians  to  plead 
its  cause.  Its  greatest  leader  was  Dr.  Charles  Porter- 
field  Krauth.  In  1865  this  brilliant  thinker,  an  out- 
spoken opponent  of  the  Definite  Platform  theology, 
abandoned  the  last  remnants  of  the  confessional  views 
under  which  he  had  grown  up,  and  the  controversy 
between  the  two  parties  of  the  General  vSynod  as- 
sumed the  proportions  of  a  final  and  decisive  con- 
flict. *"*  This  great  conflict  was  preceded  by  two  other 
ruptures  which  we  will  now  describe. 


""On  the  other  hand,  it  was  putting:  a  premium  on  indiffercntisra, 
which  carries  with  itself  the  danger  of  developing  into  a  negative 
liberalism,    thus   inviting   disastrous   developments    for   the    future. 

"**True  it  is  that  the  Concordia  Lutherans  were  engaged  in  vio- 
lent controversies,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  have  settled 
their  differences  with  the  exception  of  a  few  points.  These  doctrinal 
controversies  should  not  have  been  taken  as  a  justification  of  the  Gen- 


136  DISRUPTION   OF   THE   GENERAL   SYNOD,  §    lO/ 

1.  The  Exodus  of  the  Swedes.  In  the  Synod  of 
Northern  Illinois,  a  District  Synod  of  the  General 
Synod,  there  were  a  large  number  of  Swedes.  In 
1859  they  formed  about  one-half  of  the  whole  synod. 
They  were  divided  into  three  conferences :  Chicago, 
Mississippi  and  Minnesota.  At  Springfield,  111.,  they 
co-operated  with  the  English  part  of  their  synod 
in  the  management  of  the  Illinois  State  University. 
There  W.  M.  Reynolds  was  president  and  Dr.  S.  W. 
Harkey  professor  of  theology.  In  1856  Prof.  L.  P. 
Esbjoern  took  charge  of  its  Scandinavian  department. 
These  Scandinavians  did  not  really  agree  doctrinally 
with  their  English-speaking  brethren,  but  they  did 
not  know  where  else  to  turn  for  the  education  of  a 
ministry.  They,  however,  had  the  satisfaction,  of 
causing  the  Northern  Illinois  Synod  to  speak  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  "a  correct  and  true  summary 
of  the  teachings  of  the  Christian  religion."  ^"^  But 
soon  they  came  to  the  parting  of  the  ways.  In  the 
Jubilee  edition  of  the  Augustana  Synod,  we  read  the 


eral  Synod  for  keeping  its  doctrinal  basis  general  and  indefinite.  It  is 
in  the  very  nature  of  Lutheranism  to  strive  towards  an  expression  of 
the  principles  embodied  in  its  confession.  This  is  the  case  especially 
in  America  where  these  principles  become  the  flag  which  ministers 
and  congregations  must  follow  out  of  their  own  free  choice.  In  a  Lu- 
theran body  with  a  broad  and  indefinite  doctrinal  basis,  one  party  to 
which  the  future  belongs  because  of  its  adhering  to  the  historically 
genuine  thing  will  oppose  itself  to  another  more  unionistic  party.  So 
the  Synod  has  strife  in  its  own  camp.  Verily,  the  altogether  too 
broad  doctrinal  basis  has  been  the  dynamite  box  under  the  structure 
of  the  General  Synod  up  to  recent  times.  It  will  be  found  that  the 
Richmond  Resolutions,  together  with  the  new  doctrinal  basis  (comp. 
§  n,  1  f),  in  which  the  "unaltered"  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  old 
limitations  of  the  obligation  to  the  "fundamental  doctrines"  was  re- 
moved, has  inaugurated  a  more  peaceful  period  in  the  history  of  the 
General  Synod. 

!•*  See  "The  Augustana  Synod,  a  brief  Review  of  its  History,"  1860- 
1910,   Rock  Island,   111.,   Augustana  Book  Concern,  p.  31. 


§    lO,-  ORIGIN    OF   THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I37 

following  remark :  "During  subsequent  years  a 
number  of  'new  Lutherans'  were  received  who  recog- 
nized no  standards  of  doctrine  and  who  did  all  in 
their  power  to  tear  down  every  barrier  which  might 
hinder  the  instream  of  free  thought."  Ksbjoern  and 
Hasselquist,  as  delegates  to  the  General  Synod  at 
Pittsburg  (1857),  returned  with  sore  hearts  over  the 
reception  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod  (§  10,  3,  a).  The 
plan  to  withdraw  was  maturing  among  the  Scan- 
dinavians, when  troubles  arose  between  Esbjoern  and 
some  professors  at  Springfield,  111.  Esbjoern  resigned 
suddenly  April,  1860,  and  moved  to  Chicago.  The 
Scandinavian  students,  with  the  exception  of  two, 
went  with  him.  ^^°  At  a  gathering  in  Chicago  this  step 
was  justified  by  the  Scandinavians  who,  dissolving 
their  connection  with  the  Synod  of  Northern  Illinois, 
formed  the  Augustana  Synod,  then  largely  composed 
of  Swedes,  Danes  and  Norwegians.  (Comp.  §  19,  5,  b  ; 
§  32,  III  3  ;  §  33,  3.)  The  new  body  eventually  united 
with  the  General  Council  (§  19,  5).  The  Springfield 
school  ceased  to  serve  the  General  Synod  and  was 
purchased  (1868)  by  the  Missourians,  who  use  it 
to-day  as  their  practical  seminary  (§  24,  1). 

2.  The  Exodus  of  the  Southern  Lutherans  (1863). 
This  was  the  beginning  of  a  larger  secession  which 
shall  presently  be  mentioned.  From  1861  to  1864  the 
North  and  the  South  were  rent  apart  by  the  terrible 
Civil  War.  The  hatred  thus  caused  extended  into  the 
circles  of  the  Church.  It  culminated  in  the  exodus 
of  four  synods  from  the  General  Synod,  viz.,  the 
synods  of  North  Carolina.   South   Carolina,  Virginia 


'"•  R.    G.    Linker's    contribution    to    "The    Lutheran    Observer,"    Feb. 
14.  1913. 


138  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD.     §  IO,*'A,a 

and  West  Virginia.  They  formed  a  new  general 
organization  known  to-day  as  The  United  Synod  of 
the  South  (Chapter  V). 

3.  The  Disruption  Leading  to  the  Founding  of 
the  General  Council. 

A.     Preliminary. 

a.  Under  the  leadership  of  Dr.  B.  Kurtz  the 
Melanchthon  Synod  was  formed  in  Maryland  (1857). 
The  existence  of  a  new  district  synod  of  the  General 
Synod  in  the  territory  of  the  Maryland  Synod  was 
justified  on  the  principle  of  "elective  affinity".  Every- 
body should  have  the  liberty  of  belonging  to  an  organ- 
ization that  was  congenial.  The  advanced  American 
IvUtheranism  of  this  synod  was  heralded  as  its  chief 
attraction.  It  had  been  closely  modelled  after  the 
doctrinal  standards  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 
While  accepting  the  Augsburg  Confession,  it  repudi- 
ated certain  errors  which  were  said  by  some  (sic)  to 
be  contained  in  said  confession:  "1.  The  approval  of 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Mass ;  2.  Private  confession 
and  absolution ;  3.  Denial  of  the  divine  obligation  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath;  4.  Baptismal  regeneration; 
5.  The  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Savior  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar."  At  the  meet- 
ing at  Pittsburg  (1857)  the  Melanchton  Synod  asked 
to  be  received  into  the  General  Synod.  A  conflict 
seemed  imminent.  The  liberal  party,  numerically 
superior,  was  vigorously  opposed  by  a  conservative 
element.  Dr.  Krauth,  Jun.,  served  as  a  mediator.  He 
favored  the  reception  of  the  synod,  but  "affectionately 


10'  Lutheran  Observer,  Dec.   11,   1857. 


§  IO,^'A.b     ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  139 

requested"  tlie  brethren  of  that  body  to  erase  the 
implied  charg-es  against  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
The  votes  stood  98  to  26  in  favor  of  admission.  The 
delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  also  the  Scan- 
dinavians of  the  Synod  of  Northern  Illinois,  ^°^  were 
recorded  in  the  negative.  This  controversy  helped  (as 
we  have  just  seen.  §  10,  1)  to  cause  the  separation  of 
the  Swedes  from  the  General  Synod,  1860. 

b.  At  the  convention  of  the  General  Synod  at 
York,  Pa.  (1864).  the  Frauickean  Synod  applied  for 
admission.  This  body,  founded  in  1837  as  a  branch 
of  the  Hartwick  Synod,  had  never  accepted  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  It  had  adopted  a  few  general 
principles,  ^"''  and  had  issued  a  "Declaration"  in  which 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  spoken  of  "as  a  token  of  faith  in 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  of  brotherly  love."  ^^°  A 
resolution  of  the  General  Synod,  passed  as  early  as 
1839,  had  mentioned  the  Tennessee  Synod  and  the 
Franckean  Synod  as  two  extremes  endangering  the 
unity  of  Lutheranism.  But  in  1857  the  General  Synod, 
wishing  to  retract  this  resolution  regarding  the 
Tennessee  Svnod,  found  it  difficult  to  decline  similar 


''•"'  Esbjoern,   Hasselquist,   see  S  10,  1. 

'**  Reprinted    in   Jacobs'    History,   p.    457. 

""An  interesting  case  in  court  was  the  argument  concerning  prop- 
erty rights  between  the  Hartwick  and  Franckean  synods.  The  Rev. 
Philip  Wieting  left  the  Hartwick  Synod  to  unite  with  the  Franckean 
Synod.  He  wished  to  take  his  congregations  (St.  Peter's,  Rhinebeck, 
and  St.  John's.  Sharon,  both  in  Schoharie  Co.)  into  the  more  liberal 
organization.  But  while  the  majority  of  the  members  were  with  him, 
a  minority  opposed  the  move.  The  case  was  complicated  because  the 
bequest  of  one  hundred  acres  made  by  Pastor  Sommer  to  these  con- 
gregations stipulated  that  they  should  adhere  to  the  Augsbur^j  Con- 
fession. This  raised  the  discussion  into  the  sphere  of  theology.  Since 
the  Franckean  Synod  had  not  accepted  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Vice 
Chancellor  L.  H.  Sandford  ruled  in  favor  of  the  minority  which  re- 
tained land,  church  and  parsonage.  (J.  Nicum,  New  York  Ministerium, 
p.  149.) 


140  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD.      §  IO,*'A,b 

action  concerning  the  Franckean  Synod.  This  caused 
the  Franckean  Synod  to  seek  admission  into  the 
General  Synod,  hoping,  no  doubt,  that  since  the 
Melanchthon  Synod  had  encountered  no  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  such  a  step,  it  might  be  equally  successful. 
At  the  21st  convention  of  the  General  Synod  (York, 
Pa.,  May  5,  1864)  the  admission  of  the  Franckean 
Synod  was  argued  on  the  very  first  day.  A  com- 
mittee under  the  chairmanship  of  Dr.  H.  N.  Pohlman 
reported  as  follows :  "That  the  Franckean  Synod  be 
admitted  as  an  integral  portion  of  the  General  Synod, 
as  soon  as  it  shall  give  formal  expression  to  its 
adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  received  by 
the  General  Synod."  This  was  satisfactory  to  the 
Conservatives,  who  were  contending  for  the  principle 
that  no  synod  should  become  a  part  of  the  General 
Synod  which  did  not  accept  formally  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  They  held  that  if  this  rule  was  not  to  be 
applied,  the  districts  of  the  general  body  would  be 
kept  in  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  future 
security  of  their  confessional  position.  But  the  adop- 
tion of  the  resolution  was  not  the  end  of  the  aflfair. 
The  delegates  of  the  Franckean  Synod,  on  the  fol- 
lowing day,  asked  for  its  reconsideration,  declaring 
that  by  accepting  the  constitution  of  the  General 
Synod,  they  thought  that  they  had  also  accepted  its 
confession  of  faith.  After  a  lengthy  and  earnest 
debate,  the  Franckean  Synod  was  accepted  with  the 
understanding  that  it  should,  at  its  next  convention, 
adopt  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  its  doctrinal  basis. 
The  votes  stood  97  to  40.  This  was  taken  to  mean 
that  a  synod  might  enter  the  General  Synod,  even 


§  IO,^'A,b     ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I4I 

though  it  had  not  yet  accepted  the  Augustana,  but 
had  merely  indicated  its  intention  to  do  so. 

Matters  were  even  more  complicated  because  the 
Franckean  Synod  had  already  adopted,  in  place  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  an  independent  declaration  of 
faith,  excluding  several  features  of  Lutheranism. 
And  why  did  it  not  adopt  the  Augsburg  Confession 
at  the  same  meeting  at  which  it  sought  admission 
into  the  General  Synod?  This  was  the  contention  of 
the  Conservatives.  The  Liberals,  on  the  other  hand, 
and  those  who  had  been  won  over  to  their  view- 
point, argued  that  the  Franckean  Synod,  while  not 
formally  complying  with  conditions  of  admission,  had 
done  so  to  all  intents  and  purposes ;  that  other  synods 
had  been  received  under  similar  circumstances ;  that 
the  constitution  admitted  of  varied  interpretations. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  General  Synod,  at  the 
time  of  its  organization  (1820),  had  not  dared  to  be 
too  rigid  in  its  doctrinal  demands.  Particularly  the 
New  York  Ministerium  and  also  the  Ministerium 
of  Pennsylvania  would,  at  that  time,  have  been 
opposed  to  incorporating  a  confessional  paragraph, 
such  as  the  General  Synod  gave  to  its  district  synods 
(1829).  into  the  constitution  of  the  general  body 
(§  11.  1,  a).  At  that  time  the  separate  synods  were 
too  jealous  of  their  rights.  In  1835  the  General 
Synod  finally  took  courage  to  declare  that  only  those 
synods  should  be  accepted  which  believed  in  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  "as  taught  bv  our 
Church." 

Upon  this  remark,  and  also  upon  the  statement  of 
the  constitution  that  "all  regularly  constituted 
Lutheran  synods  can  be  admitted  if  they  accept  the 


142  disruption'  of  the  gen'l  synod.    §  IO,^'A,b 

constitution  and  send  delegates,  etc.,"  the  Conserva- 
tives, nov^  chiefly  led  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
based  their  arguments.  The  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  read  a 
protest  against  the  admission  of  the  Franckean  Synod. 
He  called  it  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  w^hich 
speaks  of  only  "Lutheran"  synods  to  be  admitted. 
Lutheran  synods  were  those  which  accepted  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  "as  taught  by  our 
church."  This  meant  the  Augustana.  But  at  no 
time  in  its  history  had  the  Franckean  Synod  adopted 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  For  this  reason  it  could 
not  be  regarded  as  a  properly  constituted  Lutheran 
synod.  By  admitting  it,  violence  was  being  done  to 
the  constitution  of  the  General  Synod.  This  protest 
was  signed  by  the  entire  delegation  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod,  and  also  by  delegates  of  the  following 
synods:  Pittsburg  (4),  New  York  (4),  Illinois  (3), 
Maryland  (2),  East  Pennsylvania  (1),  Olive  Branch 
(1),  Northern  Illinois  (1),  Iowa  (1),  numbering 
twenty-eight  signatures. 

At  the  same  time  another  document  was  submitted 
in  which  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  declared  its  with- 
drawal from  the  sessions  of  the  General  Synod  on 
the  ground  that  the  conditions  of  affiliation  originally 
agreed  upon  (1853)  had  been  broken.  Among  the 
resolutions  passed  at  the  time  of  the  reunion  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  with  the  General  Synod,  it  was 
clearly  stated  "that,  should  the  General  Synod  violate 
its  constitution,  and  require  of  our  synod,  or  of  any 
synod,  as  a  condition  of  admission  or  continuance  of 
membership,  assent  to  anything  conflicting  with  the 
old  and  long-established  faith  of  the  Lutheran  Evan- 


§  IO/'A,b     ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I43 

gelical  Church,  then  our  delegates  are  hereby  re- 
quired to  protest  against  such  action,  to  withdraw 
from  its  sessions  and  to  report  to  this  body."  "^ 

Annotation.  Under  similar  conditions  the  Pittsburg 
Synod  had  united  with  the  General  Sj'nod,"*  and  its  dele- 
gates were  in  perfect  accord  with  those  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  in  this  matter.  A  minority  in  both  synods  had 
opposed  the  proposed  union  with  the  General  Synod.  In 
the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  the  votes  stood  2i7  clerical 
and  15  laymen  for  and  14  clerical  and  14  laymen  against  the 
resolution.  In  the  Pittsburg  Synod  10  ministers  and  7  lay- 
men voted  for  it,  9  pastors  and  3  laymen  against  it. 

A  spirit  different  from  that  of  the  General  Synod 
pervaded  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania. 

In  1853,  the  year  of  its  admission  into  the  General 
Synod,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  acknowledged  "the 
collective  body  of  the  Symbolical  Books  as  the  confes- 
sional writings  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church, 
and  accorded  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
and  Luther's  Small  Catechism  an  especial  importance 
among  the  symbolical  books  generally"."^  Consider- 
ing further  the  cautious  language  used  in  connection 
with  its  stej)  into  the  'leneral  Synod,  we  get  some 
idea  how  doctrinal  matters  had  changed  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  (§  8,  2).  We  read  in  a  resolution  pre- 
ceding the  contemplated  affiliation :  "That  this  synod 
regards  the  General  Synod  as  an  association  of 
Evangelical  Lutheran  synods,  entertaining  the  same 
views  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as 


'"Jacobs*    History,    p.    421;    Fritschel,    IT,    83. 

'"There  was,  however,  this  difference  that,  while  the  Pittsburg 
Synod  reserved  to  itself  the  right  to  secede,  the  Pennsylvania  Minis- 
terium conferred  it  in  the  form  of  a  duty  upon  its  delegates.  Sec 
(Lutheran   Observer,   June   IS,   1866)    Buehler's   address. 

""Jacobs,  p.  422;   Fritschel,  II,  84. 


144  DISRUPTION   OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD.     §  IO,''A,b 

these  are  expressed  in  the  confessional  writings  of  our 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  and  especially  in  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  we  advert  to 
the  fact  that  the  General  Synod  is  denied  the  right  by 
its  constitution  of  making  any  innovations  or  altera- 
tion of  this  faith.    See  Article  3,  Section  2,  3." 

The  surprising  change  of  view  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  formerly  so  conspicuous  for  its  willingness  to 
make  common  cause  with  the  Reformed  (§  6,  4; 
§  8,  2,  3;  §  11,  1,  a),  is  a  historical  phenomenon 
that  calls  for  an  interpretation.  In  our  judgment 
the  explanation  is  contained  in  the  following  con- 
siderations:  1)  The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 
was  predominantly  German,  and  as  such  would  have  a 
natural  aversion  against  the  revival  movements  which 
did  so  much  to  obliterate  the  spirit  of  Lutheranism  in 
the  English  parts  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Here  the 
Ministerium  was  on  common  ground  with  the  Re- 
formed. Note  that  the  strongest  protest  against 
revivalism  came  from  the  Mercersburg  Seminary 
(Dr.  Nevin)."*  2)  When  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
Germany  experienced  its  great  reaction  against  the 
Prussian  Union  in  the  rising  of  men  like  Claus  Harms, 
Scheibel,  Stahl,  Guericke,  Rudelbach,  Ludwig  Harms, 
Loehe,  Besser,  Wangemann  and  many  others,  a  great 
literature  sprang  up,  which  revived  Lutheran  con- 
sciousness in  the  Fatherland.  Such  influences  must 
have  been  felt  more  in  a  German  body  like  the  Minis- 
terium of  Pennsylvania  than  in  the  more  Anglicized 
districts  of  the  General  Synod.  Also  the  ministers 
who  came  over  from  Germany  during  this  period 
under  the  influence  of  a  revived  Lutheran  conscious- 

"*§9,  2. 


§  lO/'A.b     ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I45 

ness  would  naturally  go  into  the  bodies  where  the 
German  language  was  especially  used.  So  gradually 
the  ministerial  body  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  began 
to  grow  in  Lutheran  convictions,  and  became  opposed 
to  the  formerly  cherished  idea  of  a  future  union  with 
the  Reformed.  3)  And  then  it  must  be  remembered 
that  in  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  there  had  always  been 
the  use  of  Luther's  catechism  and  the  thoroughly 
evangelical  hymns  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  while  in 
the  English  synods  the  catechism  went  partly  out  of 
use,  or  was  greatly  depreciated,  and  the  strong  Ger- 
man hymns  were  replaced  by  the  sentiments  of 
Methodism  and  Puritanism.  Here  all  the  German 
synods  (Tennessee,  Joint  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania 
Synods)  had  an  advantage  over  the  rapidly  Angliciz- 
ing parts  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  4)  In  addition  to 
all  this,  we  must  remember  the  strong  organizing  in- 
fluence of  such  great  men  as  Drs.  C.  F.  SchaefTer,  W.  J. 
Mann,  G.  F.  Krotel.  C.  P.  Krauth.  Jun.,  W.  A.  Passa- 
vant,  Beal  M.  Schmucker  and  others. 

Annotation.  While  the  withdrawal  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania delegation  was  keenly  felt,  it  had  a  salutary  effect  on 
the  future  of  the  General  Synod.  At  the  very  convention 
which  caused  this  rupture,  resolutions  were  passed  for  a 
clearer  definition  of  the  confessional  basis  to  be  recognized 
by  synods  desiring  to  unite  with  the  General  Synod.  Article 
III,  §  3,  was  made  more  explicit  (cf.  §  11,  1,  b).  In  its  orig- 
inal form  it  stated  that  "all  regularly  constituted  Lutheran 
synods  holding  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  as 
taught  by  our  church,  not  now  in  connection  with  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  may  at  any  time  become  associated  with  it,  by 
adopting  this  constitution  and  sending  delegates,"  etc.;  but 
the  amended  version  went  much  further:  "All  regularly 
constituted    Lutheran    synods,   not   now   in   connection    with 

10 


146  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l   8YN0D.      §  IO,''A,C 

the  General  Synod,  receiving  and  holding,  with  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  church  of  our  fathers,  the  Word  of  God 
as  contained  in  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  correct  exhibi- 
tion of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  divine  Word,  and 
of  the  faith  of  our  church,  founded  upon  the  Word,  may,  at 
any  time,"  etc.  This  amendment  was  sent  to  the  different 
district  synods,  and  having  been  adopted  by  them  was  made 
a  part  of  the  constitution  of  the  General  Synod."''  Another 
declaration  was  accepted  at  this  time  (1864)  known  as  the 
York  Resolution.  This  was  one  of  a  number  of  propositions 
made  by  Dr.  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth  at  the  convention 
of  the  Pittsburg  Synod  at  Zelienople  (1856),  and  was  directed 
against  the  Definite  Platform.  It  aimed  to  meet  current 
prejudices  against  the  Augsburg  Confession.  (See  "York 
Resolution,"  §  11,  1,  c.)  It  was  never  more  than  a  resolution, 
lacking  the  sanction  of  the  district  synods  which  is  required 
by  the  constitution,  and  was  therefore  incorporated  in  the 
new  confessional  formula  recommended  at  Washington  and 
reported  at  Atchison  as  having  been  adopted  by  all  the 
district  synods. 

c.     The  founding  of  the  seminary  at  Philadelphia 

was  another  link  in  the  chain  of  events  which  were 
working  towards  the  disruption  of  the  General  Synod. 
At  the  117th  convention  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
held  at  Pottstown,  Pa.,  May  25,  1864  (a  few  days  after 
the  return  of  the  York  delegates  who  had  withdrawn 
from  the  sessions  of  the  General  Synod),  it  was  de- 
cided to  establish  a  separate  Theological  Seminary  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  This  was  no  new  idea.  As 
early  as  1846  Dr.  C.  R.  Demme,  a  Philadelphia  clergy- 


"»This  paragraph  was  an  encouraging  improvement  even  on  the 
ordination  vow  prescribed  by  the  constitution  for  the  district  synods 
(§  11,  1,  a),  which  now  accepted  this  paragraph  of  the  General  Synod's 
Constitution.  Later,  after  the  conventions  at  Richmond,  1909,  and 
Washington,  1911,  the  phraseology  was  changed  into  the  form  now 
adopted  (at  Atchison,  1913). 


§  IO,*'A,C     ORIGIN    OF   THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I47 

man.  had  been  delegated  by  the  synod  to  collect  a 
library  and  to  educate  young  men  for  the  ministry. 
This  was  done  to  counteract  Dr.  Schmucker's  influence 
at  Gettysburg.  While  the  Germans  (Pastor  S.  K. 
Brobst.  editor  of  Theologische  Monatshefte)  had  been 
urging  the  movement,  the  English  Lutherans  delayed 
action,  hoping  that  things  might  become  more  hopeful 
at  Gettysburg. 

Dr.  Schmucker  resigned  in  February,  1864.  The 
Conservatives  wanted  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth  as  his  suc- 
cessor. This,  however,  seemed  out  of  the  question, 
especially  after  the  conflict  at  York.  ^^' 

A  schism  seemed  imminent  in  the  General  Synod. 
Dr.  C.  W.  SchaefTer,  in  his  opening  speech  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  (May  25,  1864),  urged 
the  founding  of  a  separate  seminar}-.  His  proposition 
was  unanimously  adopted.  In  a  special  meeting  at 
Allentown  (July  26th  and  27th)  the  details  were 
worked  out.  Drs.  C.  P.  Krauth,  W.  J.  Mann  and 
C.  F.  Schaeffer  were  elected  professors  ordinarii,  and 
C.  W.  Schaeffer  and  G.  F.  Krotel  as  professors 
extraordinarii.  The  seminary  was  to  be  founded  on 
the  unconditional  acceptance  of  all  the  symbols  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  It  was  opened  on 
October  5th.     Several   Gettysburg  students   went  to 


'"Not  until  August  did  Dr.  Brown  become  professor  of  systematic 
theology  at  Gettysburg.  We  have  aimed  to  be  accurate  concerning 
above  dates,  because  it  is  often  said  that  if  Dr.  Krauth  instead  of  Dr. 
Brown  had  become  professor  at  Gettysburp,  the  break  with  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  might  have  been  prevented.  But  Dr.  Krauth  was 
elected  to  the  professorship  in  the  Philadelphia  Seminary  at  a  special 
meeting  of  the  Ministerium  .it  Allentown,  July  26,  1864,  while  the 
directors  of  the  Gettysburg  Seminary  did  rot  meet  until  August  for 
the  purpose  of  selecting  a  successor  to  Dr.  Schmucker.  So  then  Dr. 
Krauth  was  no  longer  available  for  Gettysburg.  See  Spaeth,  11,  139  f; 
Dr.    Anstadt.    336  tf. 


148  DISRUPTION    OF   THE   GEN'l   SYNOD.      §  IO,''A,C 

Philadelphia.  Prof.  C.  F.  Schaeft'er  of  Gettysburg  (the 
professor  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod)  accepted  a  chair 
in  Philadelphia.  The  relations  between  the  two  insti- 
tutions became  strained.  A  literary  war  was  carried 
on  between  Dr.  Krauth  and  Dr.  Brown.  When  Dr. 
Charles  Philip  Krauth,  father  of  Charles  Porterfield 
Krauth,  heard  of  the  founding  of  the  new  seminary, 
he  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  with  a  heavy  heart: 
"Now  a  division  of  the  church  cannot  be  avoided."  ^^'' 
In  the  light  of  this  action  the  withdrawal  of  the 
delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  at  York  appeared 
as  the  climax  of  a  long  contemplated  movement  on 
the  part  of  that  body  to  oppose  a  new  confessional 
tendency  to  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod. 
The  question  was  asked:  Is  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
still  a  part  of  the  General  Synod?  When,  at  the 
meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Gettysburg 
Seminary,  the  representatives  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  wished  to  take  part,  they  were  not  recog- 
nized because  their  synod  had  ceased,  by  its  action  at 
York,  to  be  a  part  of  the  General  Synod.  This  point 
of  view  was  not  shared  by  the  Pennsylvania  delegates, 
who  asserted  that  a  break  from  the  General  Synod 
had  not  been  intended.  Dr.  Spaeth  says :  "It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  clearer  judgment  and  more  con- 
sistent logic  was  on  the  side  of  the  radical  wing  of 
the  General  Synod.  They  showed  a  thorough  appre- 
ciation of  the  real  situation,"  etc.     (C.  P.  K.  II,  154). 

Annotation.  Not  all  of  the  men  of  the  General  Synod 
who  failed  to  justify  the  action  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
should  be  classed  among  the  Radicals.  There  were  some,  to 
be  sure,  who  might  have  sacrificed  every  distinctive  feature 


"» Spaeth,  n.  154. 


§  lo/'A.c    ORIGIN  OF  the:  general  council.  149 

of  Lutheranism.     But  men  like  Chas.  Phil.  Krauth,  Chas.  A. 
Hay,  J.  G.   Morris.  J.  A.   Brown.  H.  N.  Pohlman,  T.  Storck 
and  many  others,  whose  powerful  influence  became  appar- 
ent in  their  successful  opposition  to  the  Definite  Platform, 
were    far   from   being  radical.     Neither   can    we   dispose   of 
them    as    "middle-of-the-road"    men    after    the    witty   words 
of   Dr.    Krauth :      "Moral    weaklings    who    deem    themselves 
miracles    of    gentleness,    prudence    and    moderation,    snaky 
doves,   or   dove-like   serpents,   refusing  to  be   reduced   to   a 
class.    *    *    *    They  now  go  with  the  one  side,  now  with 
the  other,  but   take   a  path  exactly  midway  between   them, 
assuming   that   wherever   the   extremes   of   opinion    are   due 
North   and   South,  the  precise  line  of  truth   is  exactly  due 
East  or  West;  and  that,  supposing  what  claims  to  be  true 
one  yard  oflF  from  the  alleged  error,  you  infallibly  keep  the 
golden    mean    by    holding    yourself    eighteen    inches    aloof 
from  both."     (Spaeth  II,  136).     Men  thus  described  no  doubt 
existed  then  as  ever.    But  the  men  in  the  middle-of-the-road 
in  the  General  Synod  were  of  a  different  type.     They  had 
not  yet   reached  the  end  of  their  theological  development, 
and    eventually    became    successful    leaders    together    with 
others    who   followed    them    (Professors    E.   J.   Wolf,   H.   L. 
Baugher,  S.  P.  Breckenridge,  L.  A.  Gotwald.  S.  A.  Ort,  D.  H. 
Bauslin,  et  al.).     Their  early  training  fell  in  the  period  of 
"American  Lutheranism"  and  Methodistic  tendencies.    They 
were  not  yet  prepared  to  discard  the  past.     They  loved  the 
General  Synod,  and  saw  in  the  exodus  of  the  Pennsylvanians 
and  in  the  founding  of  the  new  seminary  an  attempt  to  dis- 
rupt the  organization.     While  they  repudiated  the  Definite 
Platform,  they  were  accustomed  to  distinguishing  between 
fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession.   They  feared  the  Formula  of  Concord  against  which 
they  had  been   prejudiced.     The   polemical  methods   of   the 
Concordia-Lutherans  in  those  years  deterred  them  from  the 
tendencies    of    the    "Symbolists".     And    yet    they   were    not 
without    appreciation    of    the    position    which    men    like    Dr. 
Krauth  and  others  were  taking  in  confessional  respects. 


150  BIOGRAPHICAL   NOTES.  §  lO 

Biographical  Notes. 

Pastor  C.  R.  Demme,  D.  D.  (born  in  1795,  died  in  1863) 
was  the  son  of  the  General  Superintendent  of  Altenburg  in 
Germany.  He  came  with  a  full  classical  and  theological 
education  from  Germany  and  became  pastor  in  Philadelphia. 
He  was  among  the  most  eminent  preachers  and  the  pro- 
foundest  scholars  of  his  time,  somewhat  mediating  in  his 
theological  position.  He  was  a  born  leader,  a  man  of  im- 
posing presence  and  altogether  the  most  influential  member 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  As  a  hymnologist  and  an  au- 
thority in  liturgical  matters  he  ranks  very  high.  The 
hymnal  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  (1849)  and  its  ritual 
(1849)  are  largely  his  work. 

Prof.  C.  F.  SchaefFer,  D.  D.,  born  1807  in  Germantown, 
Pa.,  educated  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  (in  theol- 
ogy by  his  father  Dr.  F.  D.  Schaeffer  and  Dr.  Demme),  be- 
came Pastor  at  Carlisle,  Pa.,  Hagerstown,  Md.,  Lancaster, 
O.,  Red  Hook,  N.  Y.,  and  Easton,  Pa.  He  was  Professor  of 
theology  in  the  seminary  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  in 
Columbus  (1840-46,  see  §  28),  in  Gettysburg,  Pa.  (1857-64),  in 
Philadelphia  (1864-79).  He  was  active  as  a  writer,  having 
translated  the  treatise  on  the  Book  of  Acts  by  Lange,  the 
Sacred  History  of  Kurtz  and  Arndt's  True  Christianity.  He 
was  also  author  of  a  commentary  on  Matthew  and  of  impor- 
tant contributions  to  the  Evangelical  Review.  He  died  in 
1898. 

Prof.  C.  W.  Schaeffer.D.  D.,  LL.D.,  born  in  Hagerstown, 
Md.,  in  1813,  educated  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
and  at  Gettysburg.  He  served  the  congregation  of  Barren 
Hill  (1834-40),  Harrisburg  (1840-49)  and  Germantown,  Pa., 
(1849-64),  became  professor  at  the  seminary  of  Philadelphia 
(1864)  and  was  for  many  years  president  of  synod.  He  dis- 
tinguished himself  as  an  author  ("Early  History  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America",  1857,  and  many  articles  in  the 
Evangelical  Review)  and  as  a  leader  in  the  Church.  He 
died  in  1898. 


§  lO,  B.a       ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I5I 

B.     The  Convention  at  Fort  Wayne,  1866. 

a.  Introductory.  The  twenty-second  convention 
of  the  General  Synod  was  opened  at  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind., 
on  the  morning  of  May  17,  1866.  At  that  time  this 
body  comprised  two-thirds  of  the  Lutherans  in 
America.  Those  who  had  followed  developments 
during  the  preceding  two  years  had  reason  to  look 
forward  to  this  notable  gathering  with  a  feeling  of 
fear  that  something  serious  might  take  place.  After 
the  convention  at  York,  "The  Lutheran  Observer"  had 
viewed  the  situation  from  every  point  of  the  compass. 
In  the  edition  of  October  21,  1864,  it  published  an 
article  on  the  "Coming  Theological  Conflict,"  in 
which  the  fear  is  expressed  that  the  Church  might 
be  increasingly  dominated  by  the  minority.  It  would 
not  be  the  lirst  time  in  history  that  the  few  would 
sway  the  many.  The  ultra-conservatives  would  now 
operate  under  the  sanction  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
and  drive  home  their  claims  by  means  of  "The 
Lutheran  and  Missionary,"  the  new  seminary  and  a 
number  of  liturgical  publications.  Should  the  Liberals 
cease  their  activity  and  display  less  sagacity  and  zeal 
in  advocating  their  side  of  the  question,  the  result 
could  be  easily  foreseen. 

Intense  bitterness  was  felt  against  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  on  account  of  the  withdrawal  of  its  dele- 
gation and  the  founding  of  the  Philadelphia  Seminary. 
Dr.  Krauth,  Jun.,  had  exposed  the  shallowness  of 
"American  Lutheranism"  in  many  able  articles  in  the 
"Lutheran  and  Missionary'. "  of  which  he  was  editor 
from  1861  to  1867.  ^'^     The  extreme  Liberalists  in  the 


"•  To   gain   a   clear  impression   of   Dr.   Krauth's   activity   in   this   re- 
spect,  see  Spaeth.   C.    P.   K..   H,  28;   also  pp.   77  to  126. 


152  DISRUPTION    OF   THE   GEN'l    SYNOD.        §  IO,B,a 

General  Synod,  who,  however,  had  not  such  a  majority 
of  votes  that  they  could  carry  any  measure  without 
the  aid  of  others  with  whom  they  were  often  at 
swords'  points,  aimed  to  exclude  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  at  this  convention,  if  it  could  be  done.  The 
"Lutheran  Observer"  presented  the  view  that  since 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  withdrawn  from  the 
General  Synod,  it  would  have  to  be  regularly  rein- 
stated before  it  could  be  recognized.  It  argued  that 
the  delegates  from  this  synod  would  have  to  pay  their 
own  expenses  to  Fort  Wayne,  that  their  credentials 
would  be  laid  on  the  table  until  after  organization  and 
that  their  case  would  be  submitted  to  a  committee 
which,  at  the  close  of  the  convention,  would  report 
that,  if  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  were 
to  attend  on  the  same  basis  as  the  delegates  of  other 
synods,  they  would  be  admitted,  but  not  otherwise.  "• 
The  "Lutheran"  knew  ^'^°  (through  a  note  directed  by 
Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker  to  his  son,  Beal  M.  Schmucker, 
a  delegate  to  synod)  that  an  extensive  correspondence 
had  been  carried  on  between  prominent  men  of  the 
General  Synod,  many  of  whom  were  delegates  to  the 
Fort  Wayne  convention,  to  the  effect  that  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  should  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a 
part  of  the  General  Synod. 

But  in  order  to  speak  impartially,  we  should  add  to 
these  statements  which  Dr.  Spaeth  has  collected  in 
his  "Life  of  Krauth,"  the  following :  Dr.  S.  K.  Brobst, 
in  the  "Lutherische  Zeitschrift,"  published  at  Allen- 
town,  Pa.,  replied  to  the  papers  of  Columbus  and  St. 
Louis,  which  expressed  regret  that  the  Pennsylvania 


"•Lutheran  Obserrer,  June  30,  1865. 
"»1884,   Dec.   27. 


§  lO,  R,a        ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  1 53 

Synod  had  not,  immediately  after  the  experience  in 
York  (at  its  meeting  in  Pottstown,  Pa.),  withdrawn 
from  the  General  Synod :  that  the  mother-synod 
should  be  given  time  to  proceed  slowly.  He  added 
that  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  would  have  separated 
from  the  General  Synod  years  ago  if  it  had  not  been 
for  its  investments  and  rights  at  Gettysburg.  This 
had  been  the  real  crux  of  the  matter  at  Pottstown,  and 
had  caused  the  delay  which  the  western  brethren  had 
failed  to  understand.  The  problem  would  soon  be 
solved,  however,  by  the  establishment  of  a  new  edu- 
cational institution.  "Therefore,  dear  brethren,  have 
patience  a  little  longer."  ^-^  Dr.  Brown,  in  a  speech 
lasting  an  hour,  which  he  delivered  at  Fort  Wayne  in 
reply  to  Dr.  Passavant,  declared  that  negotiations  had 
taken  place  and  that  "noses  had  been  counted"  by  the 
opposition,  resulting  in  the  information  that  fourteen 
synods  were  ready  to  secede  and  to  build  over  the 
ruins  of  the  General  Synod  a  new  organization. 

We  want  to  tell  both  sides  of  the  story.  Inter 
arma  silent  leges,  i.  e.,  laws  are  silent  in  the  din  of 
battle.  Synodical  politics  played  a  prominent  part 
all  around. 

At  all  events,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  elected 
regular  delegates  to  the  convention  at  Fort  Wayne. 
Its  clerical  representatives  were  J.  A.  Seiss,  chair- 
man, "==     C.  P.  Krauth,  G.  F.  Krotel,  C.  W.  SchaefTer, 

"*  English   translation   in    Lutheran   Observer,  July   21,   1865. 

*"  The  East  Pennsylvania  Synod  and  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  were 
storm  centers  at  this  time.  Dr.  Seiss  had  been  a  member  of  the  East 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  but  had  sought  admission  into  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  against  the  protest  of  the  president  and  without  a  letter  dimis- 
sory  from  the  East  Pennsylvania  Synod,  which  at  its  next  meeting 
declared  this  action  "irregular,  violent,  and  in  plain  disregard  of 
proper    intersynodical    order   and    comity"    (Lutheran    Observer,    Oct.    13, 


154  DISRUPTION   OF   THE   GEN'l   SYNOD.        §  IO,B,a 

S.  K.  Brobst,  B.  M.  Schmucker.  The  leading  editorial 
in  the  Lutheran  Observer  (May  11),  published  in  con- 
nection with  the  convention,  gave  a  general  review 
of  the  whole  situation.  It  stated  that  the  founding 
of  a  new  seminary,  close  to  Gettysburg,  yet  doctrinally 
antagonistic  to  it,  practically  amounted  to  a  schism. 
It  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  demanded  its  own  hymnal,  liturgy  and  cat- 
echism, contrary  to  the  rights  accorded  other  district 
synods  belonging  to  the  General  Synod.  Further- 
more, the  special  privilege  by  which  the  Pennsylvania 
delegates  assumed  authority  to  judge  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  General  Synod's  proceedings  and  to 
withdraw  from  its  sessions  without  losing  member- 
ship was  altogether  untenable.  ^^^  The  article  closes 
by  saying  it  would  be  fair  for  the  General  Synod  to 
declare  that  if  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  would 
come  like  any  other  delegation,  willing  to  co-operate 
and  to  construct  the  future  policy  of  all  concerned, 
it  would  be  heartily  welcomed ;  but  should  it  come  as 
a  foe  or  even  in  a  spirit  of  antagonism  to  the  funda- 


1865).  We  can  imagine  how  it  impressed  the  East  Pennsylvania  Synod 
that  Dr.  Seiss  appeared  as  the  chairman  of  the  delegation  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod.  Since  we  have  mentioned  this  incident  the  following 
may  be  added:  The  chief  point  on  which  the  East  Pennsylvania  Synod 
had  based  its  refusal  to  dismiss  Dr.  Seiss  was  that  the  congregation 
under  his  care  was  yet  connected  with  that  synod.  The  Ministerium 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  session  at  Easton,  Pa.,  June  11-16,  1865,  defended 
itself  by  declaring  that  there  was  no  "law  upon  this  subject,  either 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  Synod  of  East  Pennsylvania  or  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  congregation  of  which  Dr.  Seiss  is  pastor "  (Engl. 
Minutes  of  the  Minist.  of  Pa.,  Easton,  Pa.,  1865,  p.  17). 

"•While  the  Pittsburg  Synod  and  the  New  York  Ministerium  had 
also  reserved  certain  rights  when  joining  the  General  Synod,  these 
rights  were  not  claimed  for  their  delegations  independent  of  the  Synod's 
instruction. 


v^  lO,  B.a        ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I55 

mental  ideals  of  the  General  Synod  and  determined  to 
overthrow  its  doctrinal  basis,  to  replace  its  literature 
and  to  disturb  its  institutions,  then  it  should  be  refused 
admission.  Apart  from  the  question  whether  the 
General  Synod  had  the  formal  right  of  rejecting  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  since  it  had  been  admitted  with 
that  objectionable  privilege  (1853),  we  cannot  help 
agreeing  with  "The  Lutheran  Observer."  The  Penn- 
sylvania Synod,  on  the  other  hand,  could  not  very  well 
recede  from  its  position.  It  stood  for  a  great  prin- 
ciple :  the  principle  of  committing  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  America  to  historical  foundations,  whence 
it  had  been  shifted  by  the  actions  of  the  advocates  of 
American  Lutheranism. 

The  question  has  been  asked :  Why  did  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  send  delegates  to  Fort  Wayne?  Dr. 
Spaeth  quotes  Dr.  Chas.  Philip  Krauth  as  having  de- 
clared that  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  was  right  in  with- 
drawing at  York,  but  wrong  in  again  sending  dele- 
gates to  Fort  Wayne.  ^-*  Indeed  its  action  is  difficult 
to  understand.  It  stated  that  it  was  encouraged  by 
the  intention  of  the  General  Synod,  expressed  at 
York,  to  embody  in  its  constitution  a  confessional 
paragraph  which  would  be  binding  upon  all  synods 
belonging  to  it  (com.  §  10,  3,  a,  page  145).  But 
the  opponents  suspected  that  a  delegation  had  been 
sent  to  Fort  Wayne  to  place  the  odium  of  schism  on 
the  General  Synod.  ^-'.  When  there  is  mutual  distrust 
there  is  easily  a  lack  of  charity  in  interpreting  the 
motives  for  an  action.     We  do  not  believe  that  there 


'••C.  p.  K.,  n.  132. 

"•Lutheran   Observer,   May   11,   1866. 


156  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD.        §  IO,B,t) 

was  entire  unity  of  view  in  the  Pennsylvania  Synod. 
The  Germans,  to  be  sure,  were  united  in  their  deter- 
mination to  separate,  but  many  of  the  English,  like 
Dr.  Krauth  himself,  ^-^  felt  attached  to  the  General 
Synod  with  many  tender  ties  and  did  not  want  to 
leave  it  unless  the  step  was  absolutely  necessary. 

b.  Let  us  try  to  describe  the  proceedings  at  Fort 
Wayne.  Dr.  Samuel  Sprecher,  head  of  the  College 
and  Seminary  at  Springfield,  O.,  presided.  Eleven 
synods  had  handed  in  credentials  for  their  delegations 
and  had  been  recognized,  when  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  was  refused  admission.  Dr.  Sprecher,  after 
stating  that  he  was  fulfilling  a  painful  duty,  offered  the 
following  reason :  Since  the  delegates  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  had  severed  their  connection  with  the 
General  Synod  at  York,  he  was  forced  to  rule  that  by 
such  action  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  withdrawn 
from  the  partnership  of  the  synods  in  the  governing 
functions  of  the  General  Synod,  and  therefore  for- 
feited its  right  of  taking  part  in  the  election  of 
officers  ;  he  added  that  he  would  not  ask  for  credentials 
from  its  delegates  nor  give  recognition  to  them  until 
after  the  credentials  of  synods  whose  standing  was 
not  questioned  had  been  passed  upon ;  at  that  time 
an  opportunity  would  be  given  for  any  appeal  against 


"'  It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  even  as  late  as  1864  Dr.  Chas. 
Porterfield  Krauth  defended  the  position  of  the  General  Synod  regard- 
ing fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals  in  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
and  also  that  the  confessional  obligation  had  reference  only  to  fun- 
damentals. See  Lutheran  and  Missionary,  March  31  and  April  21,  1864. 
For  an  extensive  discussion  of  Dr.  Krauth's  position,  see  J.  L.  Neve's 
Address  of  Inauguration,  1911:  "The  Formulation  of  the  General  Syn- 
od's Confessional  Basis,"  p.  19.  Not  before  the  summer  of  1865  did  Dr. 
Krauth  change  his  views  relative  to  what  is  obligatory  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  See  Lutheran  and  Missionary,  July  13,  1865;  also 
Spaeth,  n,   115. 


§  lO,  B,b        ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  I57 

the  decision  of  the  chair.  "^  Dr.  Seiss  persistently 
submitted  the  credentials  of  his  delegation,  but  Dr. 
Sprecher,  with  the  same  persistency,  refused  to  con- 
sider them.  Dr.  Krauth  wished  to  know  on  what 
authority  the  president  was  basing  his  decision.  Dr. 
Sprecher  replied  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  author- 
ity by  which  he  could  exclude  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
but  a  question  of  lack  of  authority  for  admitting  it.  ^-^ 
Delegates  of  other  synods,  favoring  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  asked  to  be  heard,  but  were  ruled  out  of  order. 
The  convention  adjourned.  At  the  opening  of  the 
afternoon  session.  Dr.  Sprecher  gave  his  decision, 
which  is  on  record,  as  follows :  "The  chair  regards 
the  acts  of  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
by  which  they  severed  their  practical  relations  with 
the  General  Synod,  and  withdrew  from  the  partner- 
ship of  the  synods  in  the  governing  functions  of  the 
General  Synod,  as  the  act  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  that  consequently  that  synod  was  out  of 
practical  union  with  the  General  Synod  up  to  the 
adjournment  of  the  last  convention,  and  we  cannot 
know  officially  what  the  action  of  that  synod  has 
been  since  ;  so  she  must  be  considered  as  in  that  state 
of  practical  withdrawal  from  the  governing  functions 
of  the  General  Synod,  until  the  General  Synod  can 
receive  the  report  of  an  act  restoring  her  practical 
relations  to  the  General  Synod ;  and  as  no  such  report 
can  be  received  until  said  synod  is  organized,  the  chair 
cannot  recognize  any  paper  offered  at  this  stage  of  the 

'"  Quoted  from  a  German  pamphlet  published  by  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  entitled  in  translation,  "The  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  last 
Convention  of  the  General  Synod  at  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana,  1866."  Phil- 
adelphia.  1866. 

'"Spaeth,   n,   160. 


158  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD.        §  IO,B,b 

proceedings  of  the  synod,  as  a  certificate  of  delegation 
to  this  body."  ^-^  No  discussion  was  permitted  at  this 
point.  After  the  roll  call  of  the  synods  and  before 
the  election  of  officers,  the  chairman  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  once  more  submitted  the  credentials  of 
his  delegation,  but  without  success.  The  delegate  of 
another  synod  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  chair. 
The  vote  taken  on  this  appeal  sustained  the  president 
by  17  to  24.     Officers  were  elected. 

Dr.  J.  A.  Brown,  the  successor  to  Dr.  S.  S. 
Schmucker  at  Gettysburg,  was  elected  president. 
The  delegation  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  with- 
drawn, and  was  determined  not  to  make  another 
attempt  at  recognition.  They  held  that  the  with- 
drawal of  their  delegation  at  York  (1864)  did  not 
affect  their  right  to  be  represented  in  the  organization 
of  the  General  Synod. 

A  committee  which,  at  the  close  of  the  convention, 
was  instructed  to  draw  up  a  reply  to  a  "protest  from 
delegates  of  other  synods"  (see  Dr.  Ochsenford, 
Documentary  History,  p.  84),  declared  on  this  point: 
"In  the  exercise  of  their  ordinary  and  legitimate 
rights,  the  integral  members  of  such  a  body  may  speak 
against  the  passage  of  any  resolution,""  may  vote 
against  it,  when  the  question  is  put,  and  by  calling  for 
the  ayes  and  noes  may  have  their  votes  recorded ;  but 
if  they  find  themselves  in  the  minority,  loyalty  still 
requires  them  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the  majority. 
If  they  regard  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  as  involv- 
ing a  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the  body,  they 

"»  See  "The  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,"  etc.,  p.  6;  Minutes  of  General 
Synod,  Fort  Wayne,  1866,  p.  4.  Also  Dr.  S.  E.  Ochsenford,  Documentary 
History,  p.  81. 

"•  Like  that  concerning  the  admission  of  the  Franckean  Synod. 


§  lO,  B,b       ORIGIN    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  1 59 

have  still  another  right  —  that  of  protest.  They  may 
demand  that  a  respectful  protest  against  the  resolution 
be  recorded  in  the  minutes ;  thus  exonerating  them- 
selves from  all  responsibility  for  the  passage  of  the 
resolution ;  but  loyalty  requires  them  still  to  submit. 
These  are  all  the  rights  of  the  integral  parts  of  any 
organized  body  which  may  be  exercised  consistently 
with  full  and  complete  membership.  If  the  members 
of  a  body  feel  that  they  cannot  submit  even  under 
protest  to  its  action,  they  may  withdraw  from  it,  but 
this  act  is  the  beginning  of  a  revolution,  which  in  its 
very  incipiency  severs  the  practical  relations  of  the 
revolutionists,  and  forfeits  their  share  in  the  govern- 
ing power  or  functions  of  the  body ;  in  its  completion, 
it  severs  all  their  relations  to  the  body  and  all  their 
rights  in  it."  ^^^  This  expressed  the  view  of  the 
majority  in  the  General  Synod. 

But  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  em- 
phasized the  fact  that,  when  it  united  with  the 
General  Synod  in  1853,  it  had  been  done  with  the 
reservation  of  having  the  right  to  withdraw  from 
sessions  and  to  report  to  the  synod,  should  the  General 
Synod  at  any  time  do  anything  contrary  to  the  faith 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  be  it  in  the  matter  of  admis- 
sion of  new  synods  or  of  the  preservation  of  member- 
ship. They  furthermore  "-  declared  that  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  was  entirely  justified  in  specifying  this 
condition.  Says  the  reply :  "There  were  those,  how- 
ever, in  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  who,  although  a 
minority,  constituted  an  earnest  and  influential  minor- 
ity, had  resisted  the  resumption  of  an  active  connec- 

""  See   SynoH    of   Pennsylv.-»nia    Synod,   p.    3L 

•"  In   t    fornial   reply   of   whirh    we   •hall    fpea.k   later. 


l60  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEnY   SYNOD.        §  IO,B,b 

tion  with  the  General  Synod,  principally  on  the  ground 
of  doctrinal  difficulties,  and  who  were  unwilling  to  re- 
enter without  some  guarantees  that  this  union  should 
not  endanger  the  faith  and  oppress  their  conscience. 
To  remove  all  doubts  and  difficulties,  and  to  give  all 
the  brethren,  especially  those  who  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  doctrinal  position  of  portions  of  the  General 
Synod,  some  security  for  the  future,  the  Synod  adopted 
the  instructions  which  appear  to  be  offensive  to  many 
on  this  floor."  ^^^ 

It  is  of  interest  to  know  whether  the  General 
Synod  was  familiar  with  this  attitude  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  at  the  time  of  affiliation.  The  delegates 
assert  that  these  resolutions  were  published  even 
before  the  meeting  at  Winchester,  Va.,  in  1853.  "* 
The  Pennsylvania  Synod  ^''  recorded  the  following 
report  of  its  committee :  "For  whether  they  (the 
General  Synod)  gladly  received  the  delegates  of  our 
synod  at  the  convention  of  the  General  Synod  at 
Winchester,  in  1853,  from  motives  of  Christian  for- 
bearance, as  they  allege,  or  from  whatever  other 
cause,  we  were  received  upon  these  terms,  and  they 
were  never  repealed,  and  until  that  has  been  done  in  a 
legitimate  way  our  right  to  representation  cannot  be 
justly  questioned."  ^^®  Before  the  convention  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Dr.  Sprecher  wrote  to  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker: 
"While  other  synods  whose  delegates  appeared  at 
Winchester  had  to  make  regular  application  before 
their  delegates  could  take  their  seats,  those  of  the 

1^  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  14. 
1**  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  16. 

»«  During  the  meeting  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  when  receiving  the  report 
of  its  delegation. 

•*  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  p.  36. 


§    lO.'-B,  b         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'l    COUNCIL,  l6l 

Pennsylvania  Synod  were  received  without  such  ap- 
pHcation,  and  treated  as  if  their  synod  had  never  left 
the  General  Synod." "'  Says  Dr.  Spaeth ;  "Most 
cordially  were  the  delegates  of  the  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  received  by  the  General  Synod,  and 
requested  to  hand  in  their  credentials  before  the  body 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  officers."  ^^®  It  seems 
that  any  irregularities  in  the  proceedings  had  been 
purposely  overlooked,  because  a  particular  reverence 
was  felt  for  the  oldest  Lutheran  Synod  in  America, 
founded  by  Muhlenberg.  It  was  known  as  the 
"mother  synod,"  and  had  been  instrumental  in  forming 
the  General  Synod  (§  7,  2).  After  its  withdrawal 
(§  7,  3)  repeated  attempts  had  been  made  to  win  it 
back.  In  this  connection  it  is  significant  that,  in  the 
minutes  of  the  convention  at  Winchester  (1853), 
there  is  no  record  of  those  resolutions  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod,  although  at  the  time  they  were  publicly 
read.  What  did  the  General  Synod  say  concerning 
the  right  claimed  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  for  its 
action  at  York?  The  committee  reports  as  follows: 
"If  such  right  was  conceded  upon  their  re-admission 
at  Winchester,  the  retiring  President,  in  organizing 
the  present  convention,  could  not  officially  know  the 
fact,  for  it  is  not  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  this  body, 
and  the  General  Synod  cannot  now  oflficially  know  it, 
for  she  can  know  that  only  as  her  official  action  which 
is  recorded  in  her  minutes.  If  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  believed  she  had  the  right  to  which  she  has 
attached    so   much    importance,   and   which    she    has 

'"Spaeth,    II,    155.     Other    synods    received    at    the    same    time    were 
Pittsburg,  Texas  and   Northern  Illinois. 
»"I.    352. 

11 


l62  DISRUPTION   OF  THE   GEN'l  SYNOD :      §  IO,^'B,  b 

exercised  at  the  risk  of  destroying  this  body,  and  yet 
did  not  care  to  have  it  recorded,  that  is  the  fault  of 
the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  and  she  has  no  right  to 
hold  the  retiring  President  of  the  General  Synod  re- 
sponsible for  the  consequences  to  herself.  In  the 
absence  of  any  official  evidence  of  any  such  con- 
cession to  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Synod,  and  having  already  show^n  that  the 
right  claimed  is  essentially  revolutionary,  we  conclude 
that  the  General  Synod  could  not  be  understood  to 
have  conceded  it  even  tacitly  as  of  any  other  character 
than  revolutionary,  and  consequently  that  she  meant 
to  treat  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  in  case  she  exercised 
that  right,  as  being  in  a  state  of  revolution  —  that  is, 
out  of  practical  relations  with  the  General  Synod."  ^^^ 
After  the  election  of  officers  and  the  exodus  of 
the  Pennsylvania  delegation,  the  case  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  was  thoroughly  discussed.  Argu- 
ments, lasting  two  days  and  a  half,  were  presented 
and  the  following  resolutions  forwarded  through 
Secretary  M.  Sheeleigh  to  the  delegates  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod,  still  in  the  city:  "1)  That  this  synod 
regards  the  condition  annexed  by  the  Synod  of 
Pennsylvania  to  the  appointment  of  their  delegates  ^*° 
as  contrary  to  that  equality  among  the  synods  com- 
posing this  body,  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of 
this  Synod.  2)  That  whatever  motives  of  Christian 
forbearance  may  have  induced  this  synod  to  receive 
the  Pennsylvania  delegates,  in  1853,  with  this  con- 
dition, the  unfavorable  influence  since  exerted  by  it. 


i*»See  minutes  of  convention  at  Fort  Wayne;  also  minutes  of  Synod 
of  Pennsylvania. 

1"  At   the   convention   at    Easton,   Pa.,   1865. 


§    lO.'B,  b         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'L    COUNCIL.  163 

render  it  very  desirable  that  the  said  condition  be 
rescinded  by  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania.  3)  That 
the  synod  hereby  expresses  its  entire  willingTiess  to 
receive  the  delegates  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania. 
4)  That  the  delegates  from  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
be  requested  to  waive  what  may  seem  to  them  an 
irregular  organization  of  this  body  and  to  acquiesce 
in  the  present  organization."  (Documentary  History, 
p.  83.     The  fourth  point  was  added  later). 

After  a  lengthy  discussion  of  this  proposition  the 
delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  appeared  for  the 
first  time,  after  their  withdrawal,  on  the  floor  of  the 
convention  to  read  their  reply.  ^"  They  were  asked 
to  present  their  credentials.  This  they  refused,  but 
they  handed  in  a  copy  of  their  synodical  protocol  con- 
taining a  list  of  delegates.  They  refused,  on  principle, 
to  hand  in  their  real  credentials  because  these  had  been 
previously  rejected  by  the  organization.  At  the  con- 
clusion of  their  explicit  reply,  they  declared :  "What- 
ever impression  our  course  may  have  made  upon  some 
minds,  and  whatever  rumors  may  have  been.circulated 
in  reference  to  factious  and  schismatic  movements  of 
the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  we  can  say  with  a  good 
conscience  that  we  have  not  sought  division,  but  have 
waited  for  union  and  are  ready  to  co-operate  in  the 
General  Synod  —  provided  :  That  this  body  shall  now 
declare  that  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  had,  as  it 
claimed  to  have,  the  constitutional  right  to  be  repre- 
sented before  the  election  of  officers  and  take  part  in 
it  and  might  now  justly  claim  the  right  of  casting  its 
vote.     If  the  convention  will  so  declare,  we  are  per- 

'"  This  report  contains  11  pages  and  cannot  be  reprinted  here.  We 
have   given  extracts   from  it. 


164  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l    SYNOD :       §  IO,''B,  b 

fectly  willing  to  waive  the  right  of  voting,  will 
acquiesce  in  the  present  organization,  and  will  take 
our  seats  in  this  body,  equals  among  equals."  ^*^ 

It  is  interesting  to  know  that  after  discussing  this 
reply  the  chairman,  Dr.  Brown,  left  the  chair  and 
offered  this  resolution :  "Resolved,  That,  having 
heard  the  statement  and  explanation  of  the  delegation 
of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  we  recognize  said 
synod  as  a  constitutional  part  of  this  body  and  direct 
the  names  of  the  delegates  to  be  entered  upon  the 
roll."  After  discussing  this  resolution  the  convention 
adjourned  till  the  next  morning.  Says  Dr.  Jacobs : 
"The  purpose  of  the  majority  was  not  to  exclude  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  but  to  compel  its  dele- 
gates to  apply  for  re-admission,  and  then  to  readmit 
the  Ministerium,  with  the  condition  which  the  Minis- 
terium attached  to  its  admission  in  1853  annulled,  or 
the  request  made  that  the  Ministerium  should  itself 
annul  it.  The  right  of  delegates  to  withdraw  and 
report  to  their  synod  when  an  act  which  seemed  to 
them  unconstitutional  was  passed,  was  no  longer  to 
be  admitted.  This  was  the  point  of  contention  during 
the  days  of  debate  that  followed."  "^ 

It  should  be  added  that  the  delegates  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  were  elected  at  Easton,  in  1865,  with 
the  understanding  "that  this  synod  has  in  no  sense 
ceased  to  approve  of  the  protest  and  the  withdrawal 
of  its  delegates  from  the  convention  at  York ;"  and 
that  it  "still  reserves  the  privilege  (expressed  in  the 


^^^  This  "reply"  is  not  found  in  the  protocol  of  the  convention  but 
in  the  protocol  of  n9th  annual  convention  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
at  Lancaster,  Pa.  (1866).  Reprinted  also  in  Ochsenford's  Documentary 
History   of  the   General   Council,   p.   117. 

i«Hiitory,  p.   464. 


§    lO.'-B,  b         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'l    COUNCIL.  165 

resolutions  passed  on  the  occasion  ot  the  election  of 
delegates  to  the  General  Synod,  in  1853)  which 
prompted  the  action  of  its  delegation  at  the  conven- 
tion of  York,  in  1864."  Such  strong  emphasis,  showing 
the  unyielding  spirit  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  in 
this  respect,  caused  alarm  among  the  majority  party 
of  the  General  Synod.  It  was  regarded  as  exceedingly 
dangerous  at  this  time  of  restlessness  in  the  General 
Synod  to  leave  such  a  dynamite  box  under  the  delicate 
structure  of  the  organization.  The  Rev.  Joel 
Schwartz  finally  offered  the  following  amendment : 

"Resolved,  That,  after  hearing  the  response  of  the 
delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  we  cannot  con- 
scientiously recede  from  the  action  taken  by  this 
body,  believing,  after  full  and  careful  deliberation,  said 
action  to  have  been  regular  and  constitutional :  but 
that  we  reaffirm  our  readiness  to  receive  the  delegates 
of  said  synod  as  soon  as  they  present  their  credentials 
in  due  form." 

We  shall  close  the  recital  of  this  epoch-making 
struggle  by  quoting  from  the  pamphlet,  "The  Penn- 
sylvania Synod":  "The  resolution  (of  Rev.  J. 
Schwartz)  was  brought  before  the  house,  and  on 
motion  it  was  agreed  to  vote  without  debate.  The 
yeas  and  nays  were  called,  and  there  were  seventy- 
six  who  voted  for  the  resolution  and  thirty-two  who 
voted  against  it,  while  seven  declined  to  vote.  After 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution,  a  motion  was  made  to 
reconsider  the  vote  just  taken,  followed  by  another 
to  lay  this  motion  to  reconsider  on  the  table,  the 
effect  of  which  was,  and  was  proclaimed  to  be,  to 
prevent   the   convention    from    again   considering  the 


l66  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l    SYNOD :       §  IO,^'B,  b 

subject.  Thus  did  the  majority  firmly  and  positively 
burn  the  bridge  behind  them."  "■* 

The  chairman  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  arose 
and  declared  that  he  considered  the  decision  of  the 
convention  as  final,  and  that  there  was  nothing  left 
for  his  delegation  but  to  withdraw  and  report  to  their 
synod.  He  added,  however,  that  in  accord  with  the 
position  originally  taken,  such  a  step  had  no  bearing 
on  the  relation  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  to  the 
General  Synod.  Dr.  J.  A.  Brown,  the  President  of 
the  General  Synod,  replied  that  the  General  Synod  by 
no  means  considered  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  as  being 
out  of  the  organization  (Documentar)'  History,  p.  84). 
But  the  rupture  had  been  made,  and,  as  the  sequel 
proved,  could  not  be  healed. 

The  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  many  friends  among 
other  synods,  with  whom  they  had  held  various  meet- 
ings regarding  possible  steps  that  might  have  to  be 
taken  should  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  secede.  It  was 
agreed  first  to  issue  a  protest  against  the  action  of 
the  General  Synod.  This  protest,  read  by  Dr.  W.  A. 
Passavant,  was  signed  by  twenty-two  delegates  of 
different  synods  :  New  York  (4),  Pittsburg  (5),  Engl. 
Synod  of  Ohio  (4),  Iowa  (3),  Northern  Illinois  (3), 
Northern  Indiana  (3),  Minnesota  (1),  Hartwick  (1), 
Illinois  (1).  The  protest  closed  with  these  words: 
"Its  inevitable  consequences  will  be  felt  in  the  future, 
and  will  make  a  deep  impression  upon  the  character 
and  development  of  the  church."^*^ 


^**  The  Pennsylvania  Synod,  p.  23.  See  also  minutes  of  General 
Synod. 

1^  The  protest  is  to  be  found  in  the  pamphlet,  "The  Pennsylvania 
Synod,"  p.  29;  also  in  the  minutes  of  the  Fort  Wayne  Convention,  and 
in  Dr.   Ochsenford,   "Documentary   History,"   p.   84  flf. 


§    lO.'-B,  C         AND  ORIGIN    OF   GEN'l   COUNCIL.  167 

c.     A  Review  of  the  Proceedings  at  Fort  Wayne. 

The  General  Synod  was  no  doubt  justified  in  its  desire 
not  to  have  affiliated  with  it  a  synod  claiming  for  its 
delegation  the  prerogative  of  withdrawing  without 
therewith  forfeiting  its  membership.  Nowadays  no 
synod  would  be  admitted  on  that  basis,  neither  to  the 
General  Synod  nor  to  any  other  large  body.  The 
reservation  with  which  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 
vania had  entered  was  more  hurtful  to  the  General 
Synod  than  it  was  needed  as  a  protection  for  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod.  At  any  time  in  the  future  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  might  withdraw  from  the  General 
Synod,  just  as  later  a  number  of  synods  left  the 
General  Council  when  they  found  their  ideals  un- 
realized. The  reservation  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
left  it  to  the  collective  wisdom  of  just  a  delegation  to 
introduce  the  consideration  of  a  far-reaching  schism ; 
the  synod  then  might  decide  either  to  secede  or  to 
remain  in  the  General  Synod  until  it  had  collected 
enough  sympathizers  to  efTect  the  organization  of  a 
new  general  body.  Such  proceedings  might  event- 
ually dynamite  the  whole  organization.  Fairness 
demands  that  the  difficult  and  critical  position  of  the 
General  Synod  at  Fort  Wayne  be  fully  appreciated. 
Ever  after  the  convention  at  York  separation  had 
been  in  the  air :  and  when  immediately  afterwards 
the  Philadelphia  Seminary  was  founded,  even  the  men 
in  the  middle  of  the  road,  who  would  not  have  been 
averse  to  receiving  theological  inspiration  from  the 
men  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  were  justly  alarmed. 
It  must  further  be  admitted  that  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  especially  in  its  instruction  to  the  delegation 


l68  DISRUPTION   OF  THE   GEN'l   SYNOD:       §  IO,''B,  C 

elected  at  Easton  (1865),  used  language  not  calculated 
to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  rupture. 

But  was  the  General  Synod  altogether  right?  Its 
mistake  of  1853  was  not  to  be  denied.  The  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  had  been  admitted  with  that  reservation. 
It  was  true,  and  it  may  serve  to  explain  the  ruling 
of  Dr.  Sprecher,  that  there  was  no  record  of  it  in  the 
protocol  of  1853.  Still  it  remains  doubtful  that  the 
exclusion  of  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
was  a  justifiable  act.  ^*®  It  should  have  been  borne 
in  mind  that  the  convention  was  a  religious  one  and 
that  parliamentary  tactics  were  clearly  out  of  place 
at  a  moment  when  it  was  the  great  problem  how 
English  Lutheranism  could  be  kept  from  being  rent 
into  two  hostile  camps.  The  Pennsylvania  Synod 
should  have  been  admitted,  and  the  arguments  on  the 
objectionable  clause  reserved  for  later  discussion. 

Much  has  been  said  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
conflict  at  Fort  Wayne  was  of  a  confessional  char- 
acter at  all.  This  is  both  asserted  and  denied.  "^ 
What  are  the  facts  in  the  case? 


1**  This  was  also  admitted  by  Dr.  Brown  in  the  address  we  have 
mentioned. 

'"  In  the  Allentown  Church  Case  the  view  of  the  judge  is  given 
with  reference  to  a  pamphlet  of  which  we  have  made  frequent  use, 
entitled  "The  Pennsylvania  Synod  and  the  last  Convention  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  at  Fort  Wayne,"  which  appeared  as  an  appendix  to  the 
minutes  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  of  1866  and  from  which  we  have 
quoted  much:  "This  book  coming  from  the  Ministerium,  would  be 
expected  to  show  the  doctrinal  character  of  the  withdrawal  from  the 
General  Synod;  but  it  shows  just  the  contrary.  It  shows  that  the  dis- 
pute was  a  mixture  of  parliamentary  law  and  dignity.  .  .  .  From 
that  point,  when  the  delegates  from  the  Ministerium  were  not  recog- 
nized at  Fort  Wayne,  on  through  all  this  controversy,  not  one  word 
of  doctrine  appears.  It  is  parliamentary  law,  the  President's  ruling 
of  the  General  Synod  in  sustaining,  from  beginning  to  end  .  .  .  On 
pp.  18  and  19  is  'a  clear  and  succinct  statement'  of  their  grievances. 
This   statement  comprises  nine  heads,  and  there  is  not  in  them  a  line 


§    IO,'-B,  C         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GKN'l    COUNCIL.  169 

Considering  the  long-drawn-out  conflicts  with 
"American  Lutheranism,"  the  correspondence  carried 
on  by  the  leading  men  of  that  period  (Charles  Philip 
Krauth's  letters  to  his  son;  Schmucker's  to  Sprecher; 
Passavant's  to  C.  W.  Schaeffer)  ;  also  the  editorials 
and  contributions  in  the  "Lutheran  Observer"  and 
the  "Lutheran  and  Missionary,"  and  reviewing  the 
controversial  interim  between  the  York  and  Fort 
Wayne  conventions  (1864-66),  we  cannot  but  admit 
that  confessional  differences  were  at  the  bottom  of 
this  whole  struggle.  This  was  the  crux  of  the  matter 
always  and  everywhere. 

But  another  issue  crept  into  the  discussion.  The 
old  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  ever  been  jealous  of  its 
independence.  Fearing  the  loss  of  it,  she  had  left  the 
General  Synod  in  1823,  and  not  without  apprehension 
that  her  individuality  might  be  absorbed  by  the  larger 
body,  had  she  returned  in  1853.  At  Fort  Wayne  two 
dissenting  views  of  church  government  stood  opposed 
to  each  other.  The  majority  wanted  a  general  church 
authority  whose  decisions  were  to  regulate  the  district 
synods.  But  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  would  concede 
nothing  but  advisory  functions  to  the  General  Synod. 
The  founding  of  seminaries,  the  definition  of  doctrinal 
standards  and  the  editing  of  hymnals  and  rituals  were 
to  remain  the  business  of  the  district  synods.  The 
old  mother  synod  refused  to  lose  its  autonomy.  ^^^ 

of  complaint  on  matters  of  doctrine."  (See  Quarterly  Review,  1878,  p. 
15  sq.).  Also  the  Missouri  Synod  at  that  time  deplored  that  when  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  seceded,  it  did  not  make  doctrinal  diflferencc  the 
cause  of  the  rupture.  (See  Denkschrift,  published  by  the  convention 
held  at  Fort  Wayne,  1871,  Nov.  14  to  16,  representing  members  of  the 
synods  of  Ohio,  Missouri,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Minnesota  and  also  of 
the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Synod,  p.  19).  Dr.  Spaeth  in  his  biography 
of  Dr.  Krauth  put  too  much  stress  on  the  doctrinal  side  of  the  ques- 
tion,  while   Jacobs'    History   presents   a    view   more   moderate. 

»**Sce  Jacobs'   History,   p.   468,   sq.;   Geo.  J.   Fritschel,   2,   109   sq. 


170  DISRUPTION    OF   THE    GEN'l    SYNOD:       §  IO,^'B,  C 

The  problem  of  polity  then  became  aggravated  by 
that  of  the  confessional  question.  The  Pennsylvania 
Synod  demanded  a  seminary  wrhose  faculty  was 
pledged  to  all  the  Symbolical  Books,  because  the  his- 
tory of  Gettysburg  had  proved  that  the  recognition  of 
the  Augustana  and  of  the  Catechism  v^as  not  suf- 
ficient guarantee  for  Lutheran  teaching.  Moreover, 
she  was  not  satisfied  with  the  liturgy  of  the  General 
Synod,  which  at  that  time  was  by  no  means  as  clearly 
Lutheran  as  we  find  it  in  the  "Ministerial  Acts"  of 
to-day.  "^  It  is  true  that  at  the  time  of  the  conven- 
tion at  Fort  Wayne  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  was  still 
satisfied  with  only  the  Augustana  as  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  general  body.  ^^^     And  yet  it  is  also  true 


"*  At  that  time  bread  and  wine  were  called  "outward  symbols  of 
His  body  and  blood,"  "memorials  of  our  Saviour's  suffering  and  death." 
Most  objectionable  phrases  were  mingled  with  those  of  sound  Lutheran 
character. 

""•  Those  who  believe  that  the  difference  between  the  General  Synod 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  at  the  convention  at  Fort  Wayne,  consisted 
in  the  fact  that  the  former  recognized  only  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
while  the  latter  accepted  all  the  Symbolical  Books,  are  much  mistaken. 
The  idea  of  making  the  acceptation  of  the  whole  Book  of  Concord 
obligatory  for  the  Synod  as  such  (with  the  Theological  Seminary  it  is 
a  different  thing)  did  not  become  a  matter  of  serious  consideration 
until  after  the  separation  from  the  General  Synod  had  taken  place  and 
a  new  organization  was  thought  of  with  Missouri  and  Ohio  and  other 
bodies  as  possible  participants.  Just  a  few  weeks  before  the  conven- 
tion at  York  Dr.  Krauth  stated  in  the  Lutheran  and  Missionary:  "The 
Augsburg  Confession  is  the  symbol  of  Lutheran  catholicity,  all  other 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Concord  are  symbols  of  Lutheran  particularity, 
confessions  of  the  Lutheran  faith,  but  not  in  the  indisputable  sense  of 
the  Lutheran  church  as  such."  (Lutheran  and  Missionary,  March  24, 
1864.)  He  also  defended  the  phrase  "substantially  correct"  which 
formed  the  old  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod,  but  which  was  to 
be  rejected  by  that  body  a  few  weeks  later  (Lutheran  and  Missionary, 
March  31,  1864).  His  father.  Dr.  C.  Philip  Krauth,  had  protested  as 
early  as  1850  against  the  old  doctrinal  obligation:  "We  object  to  the 
liberty  allowed  in  that  subscription  .  .  .  it  is  liable  to  great  abuse 
.  .  .  it  is  evident  that  a  creed  thus  presented  is  no  creed,  that  it 
is  anything  or  nothing,  that  its  subscription  is  a  solemn  farce."  (Ev. 
Review,   H.)     But   in   the   Lutheran   and   Missionary    (April   7,    1864)    the 


§    IO,^'B,  C         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'l    COUNCIL.  I71 

that  at  the  convention  in  Fort  Wayne,  Dr.  Krautli 
was  already  of  a  different  turn  of  mind.  In  the 
"Lutheran  and  Missionary"  (July  13,  1865,)  he  at- 
tacked the  position  (held  by  tlie  General  Synod  and 
formerly  also  by  himself)  which  differentiates  between 
fundamentals  and  non- fundamentals  in  the  Augustana. 
Dr.  Spaeth  explains  this  change  of  front  as  the  result 
of  conscientious  study,  and  says  that  Dr.  Krauth  had 
learned  to  see  through  the  utter  inconsistency  and 
shallowness  of  the  "American  Lutheranism."  '"  Yet 
there  were  men  in  the  General  Synod  who  even  then 
had  not  outgrown  the  "Definite  Platform."  This  we 
see  when  we  read  the  Lutheran  Observer  about  the 
time  of  the  convention  at  Fort  Wayne.  ^^-  And  while 
the  majority  in  that  body  did  not  approve  of  the 
attacks  on  the  venerable  document  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, they  were  not  ready  to  consider  all  parts  of  the 
Augustana  of  fundamental  value.  But  which  parts 
are  essential  and  which  non-essential?  Would  not 
everybody  accept  or  reject  whatever  he  pleased?  This 


son  takes  the  position:  "Let  the  old  formula  stand  and  be  defined." 
It  is  certain  that  if  doctrinal  matters  would  have  been  discussed  at 
Fort  Wayne,  the  delegation  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  would  have 
demanded   nothing  but   fidelity  to  the   Augustana. 

>°  Spaeth,   n,   113. 

'°  Lutheran  Observer,  May  4,  1866.  A  close  investigation  of  con- 
ditions at  that  time  will  reveal  many  un-Luthcran  influences  in  the 
General  Synod.  Dr.  H.  A.  Ott,  in  his  "History  of  the  Kansas  Synod," 
writes  concerning  the  time  when  the  founding  of  this  synod  was  taken 
under  consideration:  'The  Definite  Synodical  Platform  had  been  before 
the  Church  for  ten  years  and  had  pretty  thoroughly  leavened  the  West 
with  its  doctrines."  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  protest  of  the  venerable 
Rev.  D.  Earhardt,  the  Kansas  Synod,  even  after  the  convention  at 
Fort  Wayne,  would  have  accepted  the  Definite  Platform  as  its  doctrinal 
basis.  The  following  resolution  was  passed:  "Resolved,  That  we  organ- 
ize ourselves  into  a  synod  on  the  basis  of  the  Definite  Synodical  Plat- 
form, provided  Rev.  Earhardt  will  unite  with  us,  and  if  he  does  not, 
we    do   not"    (p.    28,    29). 


172  DISRUPTION   OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD:       §  IO,''B,  d 

would  have  been  the  burden  of  argument  at  Fort 
Wayne  had  the  convention  proceeded  far  enough. 

But  paHiamentary  rules  and  matters  of  church 
government  overshadowed  this  issue  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  meeting  at  Fort  Wayne  appears  unnatural, 
forced  and  altogether  unsatisfactory.  Nor  should  we 
attribute  too  much  importance  to  the  votes  cast  at 
this  convention.  Some  voted  against  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  for  treasons  of  doctrine,  but  others  were 
merely  concerned  about  the  governmental  feature  of 
the  question.  The  final  decision  by  no  means  signified 
a  victory  for  "American  Lutheranism."  The  Conser- 
vatives of  the  General  Synod  soon  again  began  to 
gain  influence.  They  continued  the  development  in 
the  right  direction,  and  thus  rendered  services  to  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America  which  future  historians 
will  be  forced  to  recognize. 

d.  Further  Ruptures  (the  Forming  of  the  General 
Council).  The  vote  cast  by  the  convention  at  Fort 
Wayne  meant  disruption.  A  few  weeks  afterwards, 
at  its  119th  annual  meeting,  the  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania severed  its  connection  with  the  General 
Synod  and  sent  out  an  invitation  to  all  Lutheran 
synods  to  participate  in  the  organization  of  a  new 
general  body.  In  the  following  year  (1867),  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Ind.,  the  new  organization  known  as  the 
General  Council  ^^^  came  into  existence.  The  new 
York  Ministerium,  the  Pittsburg  Synod,  the  English 
Synod  of  Ohio,  the  Illinois  Synod  and  the  Minnesota 
Synod  also  left  the  General  Synod  and  took  part  in 
the  new  organization.  Some  of  these  synods  suffered 
a  disruption.     The  New  York  Ministerium  lost  seven- 


'"  See   founding   of   General   Council,   S 17,    X. 


§    lO.^'B.  d         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'l    COUNCIL.  I73 

teen  ministers  and  ten  congregations,  which  in  turn 
formed  the  New  York  Synod  and  as  such  joined  the 
General  Synod.  Seven  ministers  had  left  the  New 
York  Ministerium  already  in  1859,  and  formed  the 
New  Jersey  Synod.  "*  This  small  organization  united 
with  the  New  York  Synod  in  1872.  After  that  the 
whole  synod  was  known  as  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey.  But  when  it  was  joined  by  the 
Hartwick  and  Franckean  Synods  (1908),  it  adopted 
the  general  name  of  New  York  Synod,  which  to-day 
is  one  of  the  largest  district  synods  of  the  General 
Synod. '"  A  disruption  also  occurred  in  the  Illinois 
Synod.  At  its  meeting  at  Mount  Pulaski,  111.,  a 
minority  refused  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the 
majority,  and  remained  wath  the  General  Synod  as 
the  Synod  of  Central  Illinois.  "*  Ten  ministers  left 
the  Pittsburg  Synod,  and,  retaining  the  name  of  the 
synod,  remained  with  the  General  Synod.  Even  con- 
gregations were  rent  asunder.  Their  pastors  would 
choose  one  way  or  the  other,  and  in  subsequent  liti- 
gations, violent  and  expensive,  church  properties  were 
variously  disposed  of.  notably  in  Pittsburg.  Leechburg. 
Williamsport  and  Allentown.  The  General  Council 
faction  would  generally  contend  that  the  General 
Synod  did  not  recognize  without  reservation  the 
Augustana  nor  the  other  confessional  writings  of  the 


••*  See  cause  of  this  schism  in  T.  Nictim's  "History  of  the  New 
York   Ministerium,"   p.   254  sq. 

••Records  of  1914  show  139  pastors,  151  congregations,  33,999  com- 
municants. 

"*  The  German  Wartburg  Synod  sprang  from  the  Synod  of  Central 
Illinois.  .Xt  first  the  Germans  of  this  synod  formed  a  conference  which 
eventually  (1876)  became  the  Wartburg  .Synod.  (See  bioRraphical  notes 
of  Dr.  Scveringhaus,  S  13).  The  Illinois  Synod  later  left  the  General 
Council  and  became  a  part  of  the  Missouri  Synod  in  which  it  was 
diatoWed. 


174  DISRUPTION   OF   THE    GEN'l   SYNOD :       §  IO,*'B,  d 

Lutheran  Church,  and  that,  therefore,  the  General 
Synod  faction  was  not  Lutheran.  But  such  argu- 
ments did  not  carry  in  court.  Although  the  position 
of  the  General  Synod  was  based  on  the  principle  that 
there  were  essential  and  non-essential  elements  in  the 
Augustana  (see  §  11,  1,  b),  yet  no  court  could  be 
moved  to  declare  the  General  Synod  non-Lutheran 
on  that  account.  This  is  a  question  of  esse  and 
bene  esse,  and  a  secular  court  can  decide  only  in 
regard  to  the  esse.  The  General  Synod  invariably  won 
the  contest  wherever  confessional  issues  were  at 
stake.  ^^^  The  testimony  on  both  sides,  usually  given 
by  theologians  of  eminence,  always  offered  a  great 
display  of  scholarship  and  sagacity.  Dr.  J.  A.  Brown 
mostly  represented  the  General  Synod  and  Dr.  C.  P. 
Krauth  the  General  Council.  In  the  case  of  the 
Leechburg  Church,  Dr.  Brown  was  on  the  witness 
stand  for  five  days,  half  a  day  on  direct  examination 
and  four  days  and  a  half  on  cross-examination.  Note- 
worthy is  also  the  case  of  Allentown,  reported  by 
Master  (Quarterly  Review,  vol.  VIIL).  Krauth, 
Schaeffer  and  Brobst  represented  the  minority  claim- 
ing the  church  property;  Hay,  Brown  and  Baum  the 
General  Synod.  The  minority  lost.  While  we  must 
not  attribute  too  much  importance  to  the  decision  of 
secular  courts  in  matters  of  a  religious  character, 
because  in  things  spiritual  there  is  more  to  be  taken 
account  of  than  the  letter  of  the  law,  yet  we  find  in 
the  jurist's  view-point,  which  at  times  was  confirmed 
by  the  highest  authorities,  an  additional  evidence  for 
our  assertion  that  the  difference  between  the  Luther- 


1"  The  case  of   the   Frauckean   Synod   in   1864  wa»  di£fercnt.     There 
not  even  the   Augustana  was  mentioned  as  a  doctrinal  basis. 


§    IO,*B,  d         AND   ORIGIN    OF    GEN'L    COUNCIL.  I75 

anism  of  the  two  sides  was,  with  regard  to  the  form 
of  confessional  obligation  a  question  of  esse  and  be^ic 
esse. 

The  losses  of  the  General  Synod  between  1860  and 
1870  were  enormous.  Counting  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Swedes  and  of  the  southern  Lutherans,  they  amounted 
to  two  hundred  and  seventeen  clergymen  and  seventy- 
six  thousand  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  communi- 
cants. In  1860  the  General  Synod  comprised  two- 
thirds  of  the  Lutherans  in  America,  and  at  this 
period  of  our  history  only  one-fourth.  But  that  it 
retained  its  vitality  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
that  to-day  (1915)  it  represents  one  thousand  three 
hundred  and  sixty-six  ministers,  one  thousand,  eight 
hundred  and  thirty-one  congregations  and  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty-nine  thousand  six  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  communicants. 

Annotation.  In  late  years  the  following  synods  have 
united  with  the  General  Synod:  1867  the  Susquehanna 
Synod,  1868  the  Kansas  Synod,  1861  the  (English)  Nebraska 
Synod,  1877  the  Wartburg  Synod,  1891  the  Synod  of  Cali- 
fornia, the  Rocky  Mountain  Synod  and  the  German  Ne- 
braska Synod.  The  last  named  synod  was  formed  by  German 
ministers  of  the  incrcasingl}-  English  Nebraska  Synod,  and 
comprises,  according  to  its  latest  reports,  eighty-three  min- 
isters and  one  hundred  fifteen  congregations.  In  the  terri- 
tories of  Kansas,  Oklahoma,  Nebraska  and  the  two  Dakotas 
the  Germans  of  the  General  Synod  seem  to  have  good 
prospects.  The  first  ministerial  supply  for  Nebraska  was 
furnished  by  the  Chicago  seminary  (Dr.  J.  D.  Severinghaus)  ; 
later  the  work  was  chiefly  carried  on  by  the  V\'estern  Theo- 
logical Seminary  (Dr.  J.  L.  Neve,  Dean  of  the  German  De- 
partment), whence  whole  classes  of  candidates  went  into 
the  Nebraska  field.  In  1913  the  synod  founded  its  own  sem- 
inary in  Lincoln,  Neb.  The  New  York  Synod  joined  the 
General  Synod  in   1908,  but  this  was  merely  a  case  where 


176  THE   CHARACTER  OF  THE  GEN^L   SYNOD:      §  II/'' 

synods  which  formerly  had  belonged  to  the  General  Synod 
(Hartwick,  Franckean,  New  York  and  New  Jersey)  now 
formed  a  larger  organization. 


§  11.    The  Character  of  the  General  Synod. 

1.     General  Review  of  Doctrinal  Development. 

To  arrive  at  a  proper  perspective  we  have  to  refer 
to  some  facts  which  have  been  previously  mentioned. 

a.  The  first  constitution  of  the  General  Synod 
(given  in  detail  by  Fritschel,  Vol.  II,  p.  40)  contained 
no  explicit  declaration  of  adherence  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 

This  defect  is  explained  by  the  tendency  of  that 
period,  which  was  one  in  which  the  necessity  of  a 
clearly  stated  doctrinal  basis  was  not  yet  realized. 
Consideration,  especially  for  the  New  York  Minis- 
terium  and  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  prevailed  upon 
the  General  Synod  at  its  formation  to  refrain  from 
incorporating  doctrinal  declarations,  even  regarding 
the  Augustana,  in  its  constitution. 

As  early  as  1792  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 
had  adopted  a  new  constitution  in  which  every 
reference  to  the  Lutheran  confessions  had  been  care- 
fully avoided  (§  6,  4).  The  gates  were  to  be  left  open 
for  a  union  with  the  Reformed.  In  1819  it  was  decided 
to  found  a  theological  seminary  together  with  the 
Reformed,  and  in  1822  the  desire  was  expressed  to 
unite  with  that  denomination.  (For  a  historical  in- 
terpretation of  the  situation  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  see  §  10,  3,  b,  page  144  sq.)  Socinianism  was 
rampant  in  the  New  York  Ministerium,  whose  presi- 


§    II,'"  DOCTRINAL    DEVELOPMENT.  1 77 

dent,  Dr.  Quitman,  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
General  Synod.  This  explains  why  the  General  Synod 
could  not  mention  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  con- 
stitution of  1820.  At  that  time  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker 
was  a  more  positive  theologian  than  the  majority  of 
his  contemporaries.  In  view  of  the  rationalistic 
tendencies  in  the  New  York  Ministerium,  he  demanded 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  be  raised  from  the  dust 
and  that  every  clergyman  sign  the  twenty-one  articles 
of  faith,  and  declare  before  God  that  they  were  in 
harmony  with  the  Bible,  not  quatcnus,  but  quia.  ^'* 

Xot  until  1835  was  a  paragraph  added  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  General  Synod,  requiring  that  synods 
desiring  to  unite  with  it  should  accept  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Bible  as  taught  by  our  Church. 

But  this  fact  does  not  authorize  us  to  say  that 
the  General  Synod  remained  all  those  years  without 
a  confessional  obligation.  For  in  1829  it  adopted  a 
constitution  for  its  district  synods,  which  in  its  for- 
mula for  ordination  required  an  affirmative  answer 
to  the  following  questions : 

1.  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

2.  Do  you  believe  that  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Word  of  God  are  taught  in  a  manner  substantially  cor- 
rect in  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession? 

Even  earlier  than  this,  in  1825,  the  confessional 
basis  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Gettysburg  was 

expressed  as  follows : 


'"Sec    letter    to    his    father    in    Anstadt,    "Life    and    Times    of    Dr. 
S.   S.   Schmucker." 

12 


178  THK    CHARACTER   OF    THE   GEN'l    SYNOD:       §  II/-* 

In  this  Seminary  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  found  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  shall  be 
taught  in  the  German  and  English  languages  : 

When  the  professors  were  inducted  into  office 
they  were  required  to  affirm : 

I  believe  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Cate- 
chisms of  Luther  are  a  summary  and  correct  exhibition  of 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  God's  Word. 

A  closer  examination  of  these  confessional  obliga- 
tions, particularly  that  contained  in  the  formula  of 
ordination,  reveals  a  lack  of  the  necessary  clearness 
and  definiteness.  The  expression  "substantially  cor- 
rect" was  interpreted  by  the  representatives  of  the 
so-called  "American  Lutheranism"  to  mean  that  the 
Augustana  was  not  throughout  in  accordance  with 
the  Scriptures,  and  that  they  had  the  right,  therefore, 
to  reject  such  articles  as  they  chose. 

b)  At  the  convention  at  York,  Pa.  (1864),  the 
very  one  from  which  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Ministerium  had  withdrawn  in  consequence  of 
the  reception  of  the  Franckean  Synod  (§  10,  3),  the 
General  Synod  recommended  to  its  district  synods 
the  incorporation  of  the  following  paragraph  in  the 
constitution  of  the  general  body: 

"All  regularly  constituted  Lutheran  synods,  not  now  in 
connection  with  the  General  Synod,  receiving  and  holding, 
with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  our  fathers,  the 
Word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  canonical  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  cor- 
rect exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  divine 
Word,  and  of  the  faith  of  our  Church  founded  upon  that 
Word,  may  at  any  time  become  associated  with  the  General 


§    I  I,'*"  DOCTRINAL   DEVELOPMENT.  1 79 

Synod  by  complying  with  the  requisitions  of  this  constitu- 
tion and  sending  delegates,"  etc.'" 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  instead  of  "substantially  cor- 
rect," we  here  read  "a  correct  exhibition  of  the  funda^ 
mental  doctrines  of  the  divine  Word."  This  clause  was 
taken  from  the  constitution  of  the  New  York 
Ministerium. 

c)  At  the  same  convention  (York,  1864),  in  order 
to  interpret  disputed  points  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  to  bear  testimony  to  its  unequivocal  ad- 
herence to  that  symbol,  the  General  Synod  resolved : 

"This  synod,  resting  on  the  Word  of  God  as  the  sole 
authority  in  matters  of  faith,  on  its  infallible  warrant  re- 
jects the  Romish  doctrines  of  the  real  presence  of  transub- 
stantiation,  and  with  it  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation ; 
rejects  the  mass,  and  all  ceremonies  distinctive  of  the  mass; 
denies  any  power  in  the  Sacrament  as  an  opus  operatum, 
or  that  the  blessings  of  baptism  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
can  be  received  without  faith;  rejects  auricular  confession 
and  priestly  absolution  ;  holds  that  there  is  no  priesthood 
on  earth  except  that  of  all  believers,  and  that  God  only  can 
forgive  sins;  and  maintains  the  sacred  obligation  of  the 
Lord's  Day;  and  while  we  would  with  our  whole  heart 
reject  any  part  of  any  confession  which  taught  doctrines  in 
conflict  with  this  our  testimony,  nevertheless,  before  God 
and  His  Church,  we  declare  that,  in  our  judgment,  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  properly  interpreted,  is  in  perfect 
consistence  with  this  our  testimony  and  with  Holy  Scrip- 
ture as  regards  the  errors  specified." 

This  declaration  was  originally  prepared  by  Dr. 
Charles  Porterfield  Krauth  (see  §  9,  2,  biographical 
sketches),  and  adopted  by  the  Pittsburg  Synod,  which 
now  belongs  to  the  Creneral  Council,  in  1856  at  Zelien- 
ople.    Pa.,    in    connection    with    resolution'?    directed 

"•This  paragraph  was  formally  adopted  at  Washington  in  1869. 
havingr   been   previously    accepted    by    the    district    synods. 


l8o  THE    CHARACTER   OF    THE   GEN'l    SYNOD:       §  Il/>' 

against  the  "Definite  Platform."  (Compare  §  10,  3,  b, 
annotation.)  On  motion  of  Dr.  Passavant,  who 
was  an  active  member  of  the  General  Council  from 
its  inception,  it  was  adopted  by  the  General  Synod 
at  York.  This  so-called  "York  Resolution,"  as  be- 
longing to  a  period  which  had  not  as  yet  arrived  at 
confessional  clearness,  was  not  repeated,  when  in  1913 
the  present  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod  was 
being  defined  (see  §  11,  1,  f). 

d)  At  Hagerstown,  Md  (1895),  the  General  Synod 
adopted  another  resolution  which  must  be  taken  into 
consideration  in  judging  of  its  confessional  stand- 
point. It  will  be  necessary  to  go  back  a  few  years 
in  order  to  understand  the  motive  underlying  that 
resolution.  The  result  of  the  rupture  which  led  to 
the  formation  of  the  General  Council  was  by  no  means 
a  clesur  cleavage  between  the  confessional  and  the 
non-confessional  elements  (§  10,  3,  c,  close).  Many 
men  who  remained  in  the  General  Synod  had  com- 
batted  the  Definite  Platform  with  as  much  determina- 
tion as  those  who  left  it.  For  them  the  difificulty  with 
the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  resolved  itself  chiefly 
into  a  question  of  polity.  These  men  of  a  con- 
fessional tendency  constantly  increased  in  numbers 
and  influence,  and  the  relations  between  them  and 
the  men  of  the  opposite  party  grew  more  and  more 
strained.  ^*°  The  former,  the  so-called  "Conservatives," 


••*  This  strained  relation  reached  its  climax  in  the  conflict  over 
the  Common  Service.  The  United  Synod  of  the  South,  the  General 
Council,  and  the  General  Synod  had,  through  a  joint  committee  from 
the  three  bodies,  prepared  a  common  order  of  service  on  the  basis  of 
the  Lutheran  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  efforts  to  adopt 
this  liturgy  resulted  in  a  conflict  between  the  two  tendencies  in  the 
General  Synod,  lasting  for  a  number  of  years.  The  Common  Service 
was  finally  adopted. 


§     !!,'•''  IKHTRINAL    DKVKLOPM  liNT.  l8l 

complained  that  many  men  on  the  other  side  wrongly 
interpreted  the  clause  of  the  constitution  which  read?, 
"the  Augsburg  Confession  is  a  correct  exhibition  of 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  divine  Word,"  in- 
terpreting it  as  binding  them  only  on  those  points  of 
doctrine  in  which  the  Augustana  exhibits  fundamental 
truths  of  the  Bible,  but  not  binding  them  on  non- 
fundamental  doctrines.  The  latter  class  of  persons 
who,  with  an  unmistakable  leaning  toward  the  Def- 
inite Platform,  aimed  at  an  American  Lutheranism 
severed  from  its  historical  past,  accused  the  most  in- 
fluential men  on  the  conservatively  Lutheran  side  of 
seeking  to  change  the  confessional  basis  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  and  to  make,  not  the  Augsburg  Confession 
alone,  but  all  the  other  confessions  of  the  Book  of 
Concord,  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod. 
The  General  Synod,  therefore,  at  its  convention  at 
Hagerstown,  Md.  (1895),  passed  the  following  reso- 
lution as  an  interpretation  of  its  constitution : 

"This  convention  of  the  General  Synod  expresses  its 
entire  satisfaction  with  the  present  form  of  doctrinal  basis 
and  confessional  subscription,  which  is  the  Word  of  God, 
as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  as  throughout  in  perfect  consistence 
with  it  —  nothing  more,  nothing  less." 

Here  for  the  first  time  the  "Unaltered"  Augsburg 
Confession  is  mentioned,  although  no  other  than  this 
was  meant  at  York  in  1864.  Then,  too,  this  resolu- 
tion expressly  declares  that  the  Augustana  is  through- 
out in  perfect  consistence  with  God's  Word. 

e)  But  the  friction  between  these  two  parties 
did  not  cease.     Of  this  fact  the  minutes  of  the  con- 


l82  THE    CHARACTER   OF   THE   GEN'l    SYNOD:       §  II/'® 

vention  at  Des  Moines,  la.  (1901),  bear  witness.    For 
there  we  read: 

"We  re-affirm  our  unreserved  allegiance  to  the  present 
basis  of  the  General  Synod,  and  we  hold  that  to  make  any 
distinction  between  fundamental  and  so-called  non-funda- 
mental doctrines  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  contrary  to 
that  basis  as  set  forth  in  our  formula  of  confessional 
subscription." 

These  were  the  years  when  Dr.  J.  G.  Butler  of 
Washington,  D.  C,  edited  "The  Lutheran  Evangelist." 
He  and  men  of  a  similar  view-point  persistently  de- 
clared that  the  General  Synod  had  purposely  de- 
manded nothing  but  fidelity  to  the  fundamentals  of 
the  Augustana.  The  Conservatives  objected  to  this, 
b^^cause  it  left  every  one  to  decide  for  himself  what 
is  fundamental,  and  so  the  General  Synod  passed  the 
above  mentioned  resolution. 

f)  But  the  resolutions  of  Hagerstown  and  Des 
Moines  were  not  really  constitutional.  They  had  not 
been  submitted  to  the  District  Synods  for  approval, 
but  were  unexpectedly  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  General  Synod  and  thus  unanimously  adopted. 
In  order  to  become  constitutional  certain  recom- 
mendations would  have  to  be  sent  to  the  District 
Synods  in  advance,  and  only  after  two-thirds  of  these 
District  Synods  had  considered  them  favorably,  could 
they  be  incorporated  in  the  constitution. 

Meanwhile  a  convention  of  the  General  Council 
was  held  at  Bufifalo,  N.  Y.  (1907).  Here,  on  motion 
of  the  Canada  Synod  and  on  the  basis  of  certain 
theses  written  by  Dr.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  the  question  of 
exchange  of  delegates  with  the  General  Synod  was 
under    discussion.      Objections    were    raised    on    the 


§  II,'-'         DOCTRINAL  UEVELOl'M EN T.  183 

ground  that  the  General  Synod  was  still  standing  on 
an  ambiguous  confessional  basis.  In  reference  to 
this  certain  resolutions  were  adopted  at  the  con- 
vention of  the  General  Synod  at  Richmond,  Ind. 
{1909).  These  resolutions  had  been  carefully  worked 
out  by  Dr.  L.  S.  Keyser,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
faculty  of  Wittenberg  Seminary.  He  had  been  the 
General  Synod's  official  delegate  at  the  Buffalo  meet- 
ing of  the  General  Council ;  hence  his  special  interest 
in  the  confessional  issues.  (Minutes  of  the  General 
Synod  for  1909,  pp.  53-61.)  The  statements  reiterated 
in  a  vigorous  way  the  declarations  at  Hagerstown 
and  Des  Moines,  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  General 
Synod  did  recognize  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, and  that,  as  far  as  confessional  obligation  was 
concerned,  it  made  no  distinction  between  points 
essential  and  non-essential  in  the  sense  of  rejecting 
anything  of  confessional  substance.  Surely  this  was 
some  progress  since  1866!  At  that  time  even  the  most 
conservative  would  have  refused  to  accept  this  posi- 
tion. The  Richmond  convention  went  even  further.  It 
expressed  its  appreciation  also  of  the  other  Lutheran 
symbols,  characterizing  them  as  "a  most  valuable  body 
of  Lutheran  belief,  explaining  and  unfolding  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  ^'^ 

These  important  resolutions  were  followed  by  a 
motion  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Clutz,  of  Gettysburg,  that  a 
committee  be  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  gather- 
ing into  concise  form  the  various  doctrinal  statements 
of  the  General  Synod  in  the  past  and  to  make  these 
part  of  the  constitution.  Two  years  afterwards,  in 
the  very  church  of  which  Dr.  Butler  had  been  pastor 

'*^  S«e   minutes    of   General    Synod,    1909,    p.    5". 


184  THE    CHARACTER   OF    THE    GEN'l    SYNOD:       §  II,*'' 

for  many  years,  Washington,  D.  C,  the  new  doc- 
trinal basis  was  defined  and  referred  to  the  District 
Synods.  In  another  two  years,  at  the  convention  at 
Atchison,  Kan.  (1913),  the  Secretary  of  the  General 
Synod  reported  that  all  the  District  Synods  had  de- 
clared in  favor  of  this  resolution,  thus  making  it  part 
of  the  constitution.  The  revised  articles  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

Article   II.     Doctrinal  Basis. 

"With  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  the  Fathers, 
the  General  Synod  receives  and  holds  the  Canonical  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New^  Testaments  as  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  and  it 
receives  and  holds  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  as  a 
correct  exhibition  of  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  our  church 
as  founded  upon  that  Word." 

Article  III.     The  Secondary  Symbols. 

"While  the  General  Synod  regards  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  a  sufficient  and  altogether  adequate  doctrinal 
basis  for  the  co-operation  of  Lutheran  Synods,  it  also  rec- 
ognizes the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Smal- 
kald  Articles,  the  Small  Catechism  of  Luther,  the  Large 
Catechism  of  Luther,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  expo- 
sitions of  Lutheran  doctrine  of  great  historical  and  inter- 
pretative value,  and  especially  commends  the  Small  Cate- 
chism as  a  book  of  instruction." 

This  was  a  splendid  forward  movement  in  re- 
gard to  doctrinal  precision.  The  naming  of  the 
"Unaltered"  Augsburg  Confession  meant  an  open 
protest  against  Melanchthonianism  and  the  theology 
of  the  Definite  Platform  known  as  "American  Luther- 
anism."  "^     The  omission  of  the  old  phrase  "funda- 

^"^  Dr.  Sprecher  at  a  later  date,  when  he  had  receded  from  his  old 
position,  accurately  described  the  Definite  Platform  as  "that  modifi- 
cation of  Lutheranism  which  has  perhaps  been  properly  called  the  cul- 
mination of  Melanchthonianism."  See  letter  to  "The  Lutheran  Evan- 
gelist"   (1891);   cf.   biographical    sketch   of  Dr.    Sprecher,   p.   130. 


§     n."  ITS    PRACTICE.  185 

mental."  which  had  wrought  such  havoc  in  the 
General  Synod,  cleared  the  confessional  atmos- 
phere. "•"' 

2.  Its  Practice.  The  admission  of  a  certain 
amount  of  fellowship  with  other  denominations  has 
always  been  a  practice  in  the  General  Synod.  It  had 
the  example  of  Muhlenberg  (cf.  §  4,  8).  In  the  days 
when  "American  Lutheranism"  had  the  dominating 
influence  it  was  carried  so  far  that  it  became  a 
menace  to  the  character  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
America  (§  9).  But  great  changes  have  taken  place  in 
this  direction. 

The    old    practice    of    exchemging    delegates    at 

synodical  conventions  with  practically  all  evangelical 
denominations  has  gradually  reduced  itself  to  a  merely 
occasional  exchange  of  greetings  with  the  Presby- 
terians and  the  Reformed.  ^"  The  General  Synod  re- 
fused to  exchange  delegates  with  denominations  of 
a  proselyting  character.  Quite  a  number  of  years 
ago  it  was  customary  also  to  receive  a  delegate  from 

'""The  Augsburg  Confession,  the  correct  interpretation  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God"  —  these  words  of  the  old 
doctrinal  basis  might  mean  that  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  have  found  an  adequate  expression  in  this  Confession.  Thus 
the  Conservatives  understood  them.  But  they  might  also  mean  that 
the  adoption  of  the  Augustana  is  limited  to  the  parts  where  it  deals 
with  fundamental  doctrines.  This  was  the  version  of  the  Liberals. 
See  J.  L.  Neve  (Inaugural  Address),  "The  Formulation  of  the  General 
Synod's   Confessional   Basis,"   Burlington,   (1911). 

'•*  Other  Lutheran  bodies  that  are  known  for  stricter  conservatism 
e.Tchange  greetings  with  the  representatives  of  non-Lutheran  churches 
at  occasions  such  as  dedication,  of  theological  seminaries,  anniversaries 
of  theological  institutions,  installation  of  professors,  etc.  Such  practice, 
to  which  there  should  be  no  objection  so  Ions  as  it  does  not  degenerate 
into  a  courteous  expression  of  unionistic  sentiment,  is  not  essentially 
different  from  that  of  the  General  Synod  in  the  point  mentioned.  The 
participants  simply  recognize  each  other  as  churches  that  have  a 
right  to  exist. 


l86  THE    CHARACTER   OF    THE   GEN'l   SYNOD:  §  11,'^ 

the  United  Brethren ;  but  at  the  convention  of  the 
synod  at  Mansfield,  Ohio  (1897),  the  delegate  from 
that  body  was  so  unfortunate  as  to  refer  to  the 
fact  that  his  church  was  sending  missionaries  to 
Germany.  This  gave  ofifense,  and  the  General  Synod 
passed  a  resolution  to  discontinue  the  exchange  of 
delegates. 

Also  as  regards  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship  the 
General  Synod  has  more  and  more  committed  itself 
to  an  elimination  of  abuses. 

The  practice  with  respect  to  exchange  of  pulpits 
is  far  from  being  uniform.  But  the  leading  min- 
isters of  the  General  Synod  have  been  settling  down 
more  and  more  upon  the  principle  that  the  regular 
services  of  the  sanctuary  in  the  Lutheran  Church  are 
to  be  conducted  by  ministers  who  have  taken  their 
confessional  vow  in  that  church.  "^  Even  the  cus- 
tomary union  meetings  on  National  Thanksgiving 
days  are  less  and  less  participated  in  by  the  ministers 
of  the  General  Synod  for  the  simple  reason  that  a 
service  in  the  Lutheran  Church  is  always  better  at- 
tended. At  the  dedication  of  churches,  at  corner- 
stone-laying, etc.,  there  is  frequently  an  exchange  of 
good  wishes,  but  always  in  side-meetings.  "* 

Regarding  zdtar  fellowship  the  General  Synod  used 
to  extend  an  invitation  to  all  present  to  commune, 
provided  they  were  in  good  standing  in  their  own 
churches.     But  this  general  invitation,  which  was  an 


^"It  may  be  admitted  that  this  is  not  yet  the  universal  practice. 
But  in  the  older,  the  larger  and  the  more  settled  congrefirations  the 
principle  is  more  and  more  recognized.  In  the  congregation  in  which 
the  writer  of  this  history  has  held  his  membership  for  a  good  many 
years  one   can   hardly   quote   a   single  exception. 

1"  It  was  on  such  occasions  that  Muhlenberg  practiced  pulpit  fel- 
lowship  with   the   surrounding   denominations    (§  4,  8). 


§   II,-  ITS  i'iL\c'ncE.  187 

exceedingly  objectionable  expression  of  indifferentism 
as  to  the  objective  faith  concerning  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, was  eliminated  from  the  Ministerial  Acts  of  the 
General  Synod  at  the  convention  at  York  in  1899.  ^®' 
The  Germans  of  the  General  Synod  (Wartburg  and 
German  Nebraska  Synods)  have  by  special  resolu- 
tions adopted  a  position  equal  to  the  so-called  Akron 
Resolutions  (see  §  18). 

At  this  place,  the  author  may  be  permitted  to  in- 
sert the  following  from  a  tract  ("Thoughts  on  Con- 
fessional Questions,"  German  Literary  Board,  Burling- 
ton, la.)  which  he  published  a  few  years  ago  (as  a 
reprint  from  the  Lutheran  Quarterly,  January,  1909)  : 

Here  in  the  Lord's  Supper  where  we  have  the  culmina- 
tion of  divine  service,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  always  been 
especially  careful  that  such  only  as  can  agree  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  sacrament  should  commune  together;  and  she 
would  not  admit  such  from  other  churches  who  consciously 
reject  the  Lutheran  conception.  When  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon  at  Marburg  were  in  conference  with  Zwingli  and  his 
adherents,  the  Swiss  reformers  suggested  the  celebration 
of  the  communion  before  parting.  But  Luther  and  Melanch- 
thon  both  regretted  that  they  could  not.  Because  of  Lu- 
ther's remark :  "You  have  another  spirit  than  we,"  it  has 
often  been  thought  that  it  must  have  been  a  stormy  con- 
ference. But  it  was  not.  In  recent  investigations  (comp. 
Schubert  in  the  Zeitschrift  fuer  Kirchengeschichte,  1908,  p. 


"'There  are  ministers  who  at  present  extend  the  following  invi- 
tation: "All  those  who  believe  with  our  church  that  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  the  true  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  given  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  may  now  with  the  congregation  come  to  the  table  of 
the  Lord."  This  proves  that  amoni;  English  Lutherans  of  the  General 
Synod  there  is  an  increasing  conviction  that  the  Biblical  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Lord's  Supper  is  inseparably  connected  with  faith  de- 
manded for  a  proper  preparation  for  receiving  the  Sacrament.  The 
"improbant  sccus  docentcs"  (they  disapprove  of  those  that  teach  other- 
wise) of  the  Augustana  (Article  X)  cannot  be  ignored  by  those  who 
claim  to  stand  on  the  Unaltered  Aur;s1)iirg  Confession. 


l88  THE    CHARACTER    OF    THE    GEN'l    SYNOD:  §  II,^ 

354)  it  has  been  pointed  out  in  what  a  peaceful  mood  espe- 
cially Luther  was.  In  all  his  letters,  for  instance,  to  his 
wife,  he  is  full  of  hope  for  a  perfect  union.  Yet  his  con- 
science forbids  him  the  celebration  of  the  communion,  be- 
cause an  agreement  has  not  yet  been  reached.  The  mild 
Melanchthon  takes  the  same  position,  and  wonders  in  his 
correspondence  and  cannot  explain  it  to  his  own  satisfac- 
tion, why  the  Zwinglians  wanted  a  celebration  of  the  com- 
munion in  spite  of  the  failure  to  reach  an  agreement  on  this 
very  doctrine  (Realencyclopaedie,  3rd  ed.,  XII,  254.  Corp. 
Ref.  II,  1108).  I  quote  this  simply  to  show  historically  that 
this  conviction,  on  which  there  has  been  so  much  discus- 
sion, existed  in  our  Church  from  the  beginning.  This  was 
in  1529.  And  in  1536  there  was  another  occasion  when 
Luther  showed  exactly  the  same  attitude.  Not  before  an 
agreement  had  been  reached  with  Bucer  and  the  others 
from  Strassburg,  in  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  did  Luther 
celebrate  with  them  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  turning  some 
leaves  of  history,  let  me  point  to  another  man  whom  we 
will  be  inclined  to  regard  as  an  authority  on  this  question, 
because  we  know  that  he  was  not  narrow,  but  had  a  wide 
and  warm  heart  for  all  children  of  God.  I  mean  Spener. 
These  are  his  words;  "Because  the  communion  with  a  con- 
gregation includes  that  one  approves  of  the  doctrine  of  this 
same  congregation,  especially  in  the  article  of  such  sacra- 
ment *  *  *  therefore  I  cannot  see  how  we  can  take  the 
communion  in  those  churches  whose  doctrine  of  the  com- 
munion we  ourselves  believe  and  profess  not  to  be  correct, 
thus  giving  one  testimony  with  our  mouth  and  another  with 
our  act.  *  *  *  Therefore  is  this  doctrine  the  most  mani- 
fest partition-wall  between  the  two  churches.  How  can 
we  then  have  a  communion  (gemeines  Mahl)  together?" 
(Letzte  theologische  Bedenken,  II,  43  seq..  Ill,  81.  83  seq.) 
Of  course,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  even  regarding  the 
Lord's  Supper  (do  not  overlook  that  .Spener  speaks  of  Lu- 
therans seeking  the  communion  in  other  churches)  cases 
must  be  considered  individually.  There  may  be  good  Lu- 
therans outside  of  the  Lutheran  Church  who  happen  to  be 
in  other  churches,  but  who  are  one  with   us   in   faith,  and 


§     11,^  ITS    I'OLITV.  189 

who,  even  if  they  cannot  give  a  clear  definition  of  our  doc- 
trine, yet  do  not  object  to  the  Real  Presence  and  positively 
regard  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  means  of  grace.  But  the 
conscientious  minister  feels  that  there  is  something  wrong 
if  some  of  the  communicants  believe  in  the  Real  Presence 
of  the  glorified  God-Man  and  his  body  be  given  to  the  peni- 
tent and  believing  soul  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
others  positively  reject  such  doctrine,  holding  that  the  ele- 
ments are  nothing  but  remembrances  of  an  absent  Savior 
and  symbols  of  a  grace  received  before,  or  that  may  be 
received  some  time  in  the  future.  Such  would  be  no  real 
communion.  And  I  am  glad  that  the  General  Synod,  in  the 
adoption  of  her  "Ministerial  Acts"  in  1899  at  York,  omitted 
that  general  invitation  to  all  members  of  other  churches  in 
good  standing  or  to  all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  which 
marked  our  old  formulas  as  expressions  of  indiflferentism 
on   so   important  a   doctrine. 

3.  Its  Polity.  The  General  Synod,  like  all  the 
synods  of  America,  rests  on  the  equality  of  aJl  or- 
dained ministers  and  the  co-operation  of  pastors  and 
laymen  in  church-work.  The  deleg-atcs  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  which  meets  biennially,  consist  of  pastors 
and  laymen  in  the  proportion  of  one  pastor  and 
one  laymen  for  every  ten  pastors  of  the  district 
synods. 

The  authority  of  the  General  Synod  over  its  dis- 
trict synods  is  largely  of  an  advisory  character.  The 
executive  and  jurisdictional  power  rests  in  the  hands 
of  the  district  synods.  The  latter,  however,  must  not 
pass  any  ordinances  that  are  in  conflict  with  the  "For- 
mula for  the  Government  and  Discipline  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church."  ^*^* 


'"This  "Basis  of  Church  Government"  (Kirchcnregimentliches 
(Irundgesetz)  is  found  in  the  "Formelbuch  fuer  die  Deutschcn  in  dcr 
Gcneralsynode"  by  Dr.  J.  D.  Sf  \  eringhaus.  p.  81;  also  in  the  Book 
of  Worship. 


igO  THE    CHARACTER   OF    THE    GEN'l    SYNOD:  §  II,* 

Among  the  special  prerogatives  of  the  General 
Synod  is  that  of  providing  the  books  and  literature 
to  be  used  in  the  pubHc  services  (agendas,  hymn- 
books,  catechisms).  The  missionary  and  benevolent 
operations  of  the  synod  are  also  under  the  direct 
supervision  of  the  general  body.  This  is  constitu- 
tional. 

There  may  be  some  truth  in  the  assertion  that  since 
the  convention  at  Fort  Wayne  (1866)  the  rights  of 
the  District  Synods,  at  least  in  practice,  have  been 
diminished  and  the  rights  of  the  General  Synod  in- 
creased. While  according  to  the  letter  of  the  lav^^ 
the  deliberations  of  the  general  body  are  merely  ad- 
visory, they  are  held  in  such  esteem  as  to  be  equiva- 
lent to  a  decision.  The  Boards  of  Home  and  Foreign 
Missions,  the  Board  of  Education  and  the  Board  of 
Publication,  all  appointed  by  the  General  Synod,  have 
much  influence.  ^'"* 

4.  The  Language  Situation.  Among  all  the  Lu- 
theran ecclesiastical  bodies  of  this  country,  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  is  the  most  Americanized,  and  therefore 
the  most  English.  The  first  official  organ  (English) 
of  the  General  Synod  was  "Lutheran  Church  Work," 
founded  by  the  convention  of  the  General  Synod  at 
Washington,  D.  C.  (1911),  and  already  (1916)  num- 
bering thirteen  thousand  subscribers.  The  "Lutheran 
Observer"  was  controlled  by  a  corporation  and  there- 
fore not  responsible  to  the  General  Synod.  On 
Oct.  23,  1915,  however,  the  "Lutheran  Observer" 
was  merged  with  the  General  Synod's  official  organ, 


^"*  Dr.   Jacobs'   History,   p.    467,   cf. ;    also   Dr.    Ochsenford.   Documen- 
tary  History   of  the   General   Council,    p.    166  i. 


§     11/  TMK    LANCUAGK    SITUATION.  IQI 

which  now  apears  under  the  name  "Lutheran  Church 
Work  and  Observer." 

About  one-eighth  of  its  pastors  and  congregations 
(more  correctly  one-seventh)  uses  the  German  lan- 
guage. The  Germans  of  the  General  Synod  are 
found  largely  in  the  almost  exclusively  German  dis- 
tricts of  the  Wartburg  Synod  (42  pastors)  and  the 
German  Nebraska  Synod  (84  pastors).  The  Synod 
of  New  York  has  also  a  German  Conference,  and  there 
are  some  Germans  in  almost  all  the  districts  of  the 
General  Synod.  Their  oflficial  church  paper  is  the 
"Lutherischer  Zionsbote,"  with  some  four  thousand 
subscribers. 


§  12.     The  Work  of  the  General  Synod. 

1.     TheologiceJ     Seminaries    and    Colleges.       The 

oldest  of  the  theological  seminaries  of  the  General 
Synod  is  Hartwick  Seminary  in  New  York  State.  Dr. 
J.  G.  Travers,  Pres.  —  The  largest  seminary  of  the 
General  Synod  is  located  at  Gettysburg,  Pa.  Founded 
in  1826  (§  7,  5),  it  has  sent  forth  more  than  one 
thousand  pastors.  At  the  present  time  the  institution 
has  five  well  endowed  professorships.  It  possesses 
a  library  which  is  extremely  valuable  for  the  history 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America.  The  value  of 
its  property  aggregates  $160,000.  For  a  long  period 
of  years,  until  1903,  its  president  was  Dr.  M.  Valen- 
tine ;  now  it  is  Dr.  J.  A.  Singmaster.  The  other  pro- 
fessors are:  Dr.  M.  Coover,  Dr.  L.  Kuhlman.  Dr.  J. 
A.  Clutz,  Dr.  H.  C.  .Mleman.  —  The  Hamma  Divinity 
School  at  Springfield,  O.,  was  founded  in  1845,  and 
stands   in   close   connection   with   a   largely   attended 


19-2  THE    WORK    OF   THE    GENERAL   SYNOD:  §    12/ 

college  (about  one  thousand  students)  founded  at  the 
same  time  and  place.  Dr.  Charles  G.  Heckert  is 
president.  The  Dean  of  the  theological  seminary  is 
Dr.  D.  H.  Bauslin.  The  other  professors  of  the  sem- 
inary are :  Dr.  V.  G.  A.  Tressler,  Dr.  L.  H.  Larimer, 
Dr.  J.  L.  Neve,  Dr.  L.  S.  Keyser.  —  Susquehanna  Uni- 
versity at  Selingsgrove,  Pa.,  was  founded  in  1858  by 
Dr.  B.  Kurtz.  It  was  intended  at  first  as  a  sort  of 
missionary  institution,  in  which  older  men,  who  could 
not  obtain  a  classical  education,  might  be  given  an 
opportunity  to  prepare  themselves  for  work  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  especially  in  the  foreign  missionary 
field.  But  since  1894,  having  received  very  consider- 
able endowments  and  increased  its  faculty,  it  has  es- 
tablished itself  as  a  full  college,  with  a  theological 
seminary  in  connection  with  it,  and  has  assumed  the 
name  given  above.  The  head  of  this  institute  for 
many  years  was  Dr.  H.  Ziegler.  Now  it  is  Dr.  C,  T. 
Aikens.  The  chief  professor  in  theology  is  Dr.  F.  P. 
Manhart.  —  The  "Western  Theological  Seminary"  at 
Atchison,  Kans.,  was  founded  in  1893  and  opened  in 
the  rooms  of  Midland  College,  with  Dr.  F.  D.  Altman 
as  its  first  president.  It  is  now  a  department  of  Mid- 
land College,  Rev.  Dr.  R.  B.  Peery  is  President.  The 
Dean  is  Dr.  Holmes  W.  Dysinger.  This  institution 
became  especially  important  to  the  Germans  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  the  German  theological  seminary, 
founded  in  Chicago  by  Dr.  J.  D.  Severinghaus  and 
conducted  by  him  for  thirteen  years  amid  many  dif- 
ficulties, was  discontinued  in  1898  and  combined  with 
this  English  institution  as  a  German  department 
under  the  care  of  Prof.  J.  L.  Neve  (1892-1909).  He 
was  succeeded  by  Dr.  J.  F.  Krueger.  —  The  youngest 


§    12,^  THKOL.   SI:M  IN  ARIES  AND  COLLEGES.  I93 

seminary  in  the  General  Synod  is  the  Martin  Luther 
(Osterloh)  Seminary  of  the  German  Nebraska  Synod, 
founded  in  1913  by  the  German  Nebraska  Synod  at 
Lincoln,  Nebr.  Its  president  is  Dr.  F.  Wupper,  who 
is  assisted  by  the  professors  E.  Klotschc  and  Dr.  H. 
Wellhausen.  All  seminaries  of  the  General  Synod 
receive  students  from  the  seminary  at  Breklum.  Ger- 
many, a  school  under  control  of  the  General  Synod 
and  supported  by  its  Board  of  Education  as  well  as 
by  the  district  synods. 

The  General  Synod  has  six  Colleges  :  Pennsylvania 
College  at  Gettysburg,  Pa.  (Dr.  W.  A.  Granville)  ; 
Wittenberg  College  at  Springfield,  O.  (Dr.  C.  G. 
Heckertj  ;  Susquehanna  University  at  Selinsgrove. 
Pa.  (Dr.  C.  T.  Aikens),  whose  chief  work  is  col- 
legiate; Hartwick,  N.  Y.  (Dr.  J.  G.  Travers),  which 
in  part  gives  education  in  the  classics ;  Carthage  Col- 
lege at  Carthage.  111.  (Dr.  H.  D.  Hoover)  ;  and  Mid- 
land College  at  Atchison,  Kans.    (Dr.  R.   B.   Peery). 

In  order  to  assist  its  younger  and  weaker  educa- 
tional institutions,  the  General  Synod  has  organized 
a  Board  of  Education.  From  benevolent  contribu- 
tions raised  on  the  so-called  apportionment  plan,  this 
Board  assists  in  the  payment  of  debts  incurred  by 
its  institutions  or  of  deficiencies  of  salary  for  the 
professors.  —  The  Parent  Education  Society  has  for 
its  object  the  giving  of  financial  aid  to  such  students 
for  the  ministry  as  are  in  need  of  help,  by  means  of 
funds  derived  from  benevolent  contributions  or  in- 
terest-bearing investments.  At  present,  however,  the 
support  of  beneficiary  students  of  theology  lies  more 
in  the  hands  of  the  individual  synods,  which  annually 
IS 


194  THE    WORK    OF    THE    GENERAL   SYNOD:  §    12," 

appoint  a  Beneficiary  Committee,  authorizing  it  to 
receive  contributions,  and  to  apportion  certain  sums 
among  worthy  students. 

2.     Missionary  Enterprises. 

a)  Foreign  Missions.  Although  the  General 
Synod  at  the  time  of  its  organization  at  Hagerstown 
already  purposed  to  do  missionary  work  among  the 
heathen,  the  plan  was  not  put  into  practical  opera- 
tion till  1842,  when  Missionary  C.  G.  Heyer  was  sent 
by  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  to  Guntur,  India, 
north  of  Madras.  The  General  Synod  supplied  him 
with  assistants,  and  assumed  the  responsibility  for 
this  work  begun  by  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium 
(comp.  §  20,  3).  In  the  year  1903  the  Guntur  Mis- 
sion contained  twenty  American  missionaries,  male 
and  female  (not  counting  the  wives  of  the  mission- 
aries), 506  native  workers,  and  28,862  baptized  mem- 
bers. Watts  Memorial  College  in  Madras  (founded 
by  means  of  a  donation  of  $10,000,  to  which  the  Eng- 
lish government  in  India  added  $11,250)  is  an  in- 
stitution meant  for  the  training  of  helpers,  and  fur- 
nishes at  the  same  time  a  Christian  education  to  other 
students  in  India.  A  Woman's  Missionary  Hospital 
exists  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Anna  Kugler. 

In  Liberia,  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  the  General 
Synod  has  another  mission,  known  as  Muhlenberg 
Mission.  On  account  of  the  deadly  climate,  however, 
the  missionaries  have  all  been  able  to  remain  there 
only  a  short  time,  and  many  of  the  missionaries  and 
their  wives  have  died  there  after  a  brief  period.  The 
name  of  Dr.  David  A.  Day  will  always  remain  closely 
associated  with  the  historv  of  this  mission.    He  and 


§     12,-  MISSrONARV    KNTEKPKISliS.  195 

his  wife  survived  the  climate  longer  than  any  others ; 
but  at  last,  after  laboring  for  twenty  years,  and  bury- 
ing his  wife  and  three  children,  he  was  carried  oil 
by  the  African  fever.  His  influence  over  the  heathen 
was  so  great  that  for  a  hundred  miles  around  the 
tribes  came  to  him  to  decide  their  disputes.  Dr.  Day 
was  certainly  the  greatest  foreign  missionary  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  America. 

In  1913  the  General  Synod  had  received  during 
the  preceding  biennium  the  sum  of  8246,953.80  for 
foreign  missions. 

b)  The  Home  Mission  Work  of  the  General  Synod 
falls  into  two  divisions:  "Home  Missions"  proper  and 
"Church  Extension."  By  the  Home  Mission  Work 
the  General  Synod  understands  the  providing  of  a 
pastor  for  young  and  weak  congregations,  and  the 
payment  of  his  salary  in  whole  or  in  part  from  the 
Home  Mission  treasury.  The  Church  Extension  so- 
ciety has  to  do  chiefly  with  the  church  property  of 
young  and  poor  congregations.  From  its  treasury  a 
certain  amount  is  donated  or  loaned  without  interest 
to  a  needy  congregation  for  the  erection  of  a  church. 
For  its  Church  Extension  work  the  General  Synod 
had  in  1913  a  fund  of  $804,573.00.  These  departments 
are  in  charge  of  a  special  Board  appointed  by  the 
General  Synod  (Dr.  H.  L.  Yarger,  Supt.)  The  for- 
mer has  three  and  the  latter  two  traveling  mis- 
sionaries in  the  field.  For  these  two  branches  of  home 
missionary  work  the  receipts  for  the  biennium  end- 
ing in  1913  were  $294,860. 

c)  Institutions  of  Mercy.  While  it  is  generally 
conceded  that  among  all  the  Lutheran  ecclesiastical 
bodies  of  America  the  General  Synod  possesses  the 


196  THE    WORK    OF   THE    GENERAL    SYNOD.  §    12,' 

best  organization  for  missionary  work,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  its  institutions  of  mercy  cannot  bear  a 
comparison  with  those  of  the  other  general  bodies. 
Yet  it  now  possesses  four  Orphansiges  (at  Loysville, 
Pa.,  Nachusa,  111.,  Springfield,  O.,  and  Lincoln,  Nebr.). 
The  General  Synod  has  a  Deaconess  Institution  in 
Baltimore,  Aid.  Its  provision  for  the  support  of 
superannuated  ministers  and  widows  of  ministers 
through  the  "Pastors'  Fund  Society"  and  the  "Home 
for  the  Aged"  in  Washington,  is  a  work  of  importance. 


§  13.     Observations  on  Statistics. 

The  General  Synod  numbers  1,366  pastors,  1,831 
congregations  and  preaching-points,  and  329,690  com- 
municants, according  to  the  statistics  for  1915.  In  con- 
nection with  the  number  of  communicants,  which, 
compared  with  that  of  other  general  bodies,  is  strik- 
ingly small,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  the 
General  Synod  not  only  the  head  of  the  family,  but 
every  communicant  member  is  expected  to  give  a 
certain  sum  for  synodical  and  benevolent  purposes 
(apportionment  system),  and  that  consequently  there 
is  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  congregations  and  pas- 
tors to  report  the  number  of  communicants  as  low 
as  possible,  in  order  to  make  sure  of  raising  the 
amount  apportioned  to  them.  Accordingly  the  num- 
ber of  communicants  given  above  must  be  understood 
as  meaning  contributing  communicants.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  Synodical  Conference,  for  example,  with 
its   proportionally   greater   number   of   members   re- 


§    13  OUSEKVATIONS   ON    STATISTICS.  I97 

ported,   all   the  contirnied   members   are   counted,   as 
they  rightly  should  be. 

Another  statistical  phenomenon  needs  explanation. 
It  appears  from  the  parochial  reports  of  the  purely 
English  districts  that  the  baptisms  of  adults  are  often 
as  numerous  as  the  baptisms  of  children.  From  this 
fact  some  have  drawn  the  conclusion  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  neglected  in  the  General  Synod.  But  here  the 
difference  between  the  work  in  English  and  in  German 
congregations  is  to  be  borne  in  mind.  The  majority 
of  the  other  Lutheran  bodies  have  to  do  largely 
with  immigrants,  who  have  nearly  all  been  baptized, 
and  who,  as  a  rule,  have  their  children  baptized,  even 
if  they  themselves  are  not  members  of  the  Church. 
Thus  it  happens  that  among  the  Germans  of  the 
General  Synod  there  are  scarcely  any  adult  baptisms. 
But  the  General  Synod  is  seven-eighths  English,  and 
in  its  missionary  work  has  to  deal  largely  with  such 
persons  as  have,  in  the  course  of  their  Americaniza- 
tion, cast  aside  the  customs  of  their  fathers,  and  have 
let  their  children  grow  up  unbaptized.  Indeed,  it 
has  to  deal  with  such  persons  as  have  been  under 
the  influence  of  denominations  which  reject  or  make 
light  of  infant  baptism.  If  such  persons  are  to  be- 
come members  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  they  must 
be  baptized  as  adults.  Conseciuently  the  larger  the 
number  of  adult  baptisms  in  an  English  Luthersm 
Synod,  the  stronger  this  fact  bears  witness  to  its 
missionary  and  evangelizing  spirit.  And  if  in  some 
of  the  eastern  synods  the  number  of  infant  baptisms 
is  actually  very  small,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  1) 
that  among  the  English  large  families  are  unfor- 
tunately ( !)   rare,  and  2)  that  in  the  Eastern  States 


198  THE   GENERAL    SYNOD.  §    1 3 

many   of  the  young  people,   when   grown,   obey   the 
advice,  "Young  man,  go  West." 

Biographical  Notes. 

Pastor  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D,,  born  in  York,  Pa., 
1803,  died  in  1895.  He  received  his  preparatory  education  at 
Princeton,  studied  theology  under  S.  S.  Schmucker  (before 
Schmucker  was  called  to  Gettysburg),  afterwards  at  Naza- 
reth (Moravian),  Princeton  and  Gettysburg.  For  thirty- 
three  years  he  served  the  First  Lutheran  Church  of  Balti- 
more, and  for  a  few  years  preceding  his  death  the  church 
of  Lutherville,  Md.  He  was  the  founder  of  the  "Lutheran 
Observer",  a  prolific  writer  and  repeatedly  president  of  the 
General  Synod,  in  whose  development  he  took  a  prominent 
part.  His  best  known  literary  products  are  "Fifty  years  in 
the  Lutheran  Ministry"  and  "Life  Reminiscences  of  an  old 
Lutheran  Minister".  In  the  latter  volume  we  find  a  list  of 
his  many  writings. 

Pastor  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D.  (1816-1898),  was  born  in 
Pinegrove,  Pa.,  studied  theology  at  Gettysburg  and  was 
ordained  in  1840.  He  served  the  congregations  of  Waynes- 
boro, Pa.,  and  Hagerstown,  Md.  In  1855  he  was  professor 
of  modern  languages  and  Homiletics  at  Wittenberg  Col- 
lege, Springfield,  O.  In  1855  he  was  called  by  the  First 
Lutheran  Church  of  Dayton,  O.,  in  1864  by  Trinity  Church, 
Lancaster,  Pa.,  and  in  1864  by  the  congregation  of  Cham- 
bersburg.  Pa.  At  that  time  he  was  a  zealous  revivalist.  In 
1863  he  became  part  owner  of  the  Lutheran  Observer  and 
its  editor  in  chief.  He  held  this  position  until  he  died.  He 
took  part  in  all  the  greater  movements  of  the  General 
Synod  (educational  work,  missionary  enterprises).  He  was 
a  contributor  to  the  Evangelical  Review  and  the  Lutheran 
Quarterly.  His  catechism  had  a  large  circulation.  Note- 
worthy is  also  his  "Lutheran  Manual  and  Guide". 

Prof.  L.  A.  Gotwald,  D.  D.,  son  of  Pastor  D.  Gotwald, 
was  born  January  31,  1833,  in  York  Springs,  Pa.  He  at- 
tended Wittenberg  College  and  afterwards  the  Pennsylvania 
College  at  Gettysburg,  Pa.,  where  he  graduated  in  1857.     In 


§    13  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  I99 

the  Gettysburg  Seminary  he  finished  his  theological  studies 
(1859).  He  served  the  following  congregations :  Shippens- 
burg,  Pa.  (1859-63),  Lebanon.  Pa.  (1863-65),  Dayton,  O.  (1865- 
69),  Chambersburg,  Pa.  (1870-74),  St.  Paul's,  York,  Pa.  (1874- 
85),  and  the  Second  Lutheran  Church.  Springfield,  O.  (1885- 
1888).  Afterwards  he  was  called  to  the  chair  of  Practical 
Theology  in  Wittenberg  Seminary.  Here  he  was  active 
until  he  was  disabled  by  a  paralytic  stroke  in  1895.  He  lived 
five  years  longer.  His  trial  before  the  directors  of  Witten- 
berg College  (1893),  on  the  charge  of  having  departed  from 
the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod,  resulted  in  his 
complete  exoneration,  and  greatly  helped  to  establish  con- 
servative Lutheranism  more  firmly  at  Wittenberg  College 
and  in  the  synods  connected  therewith.  (A  result  of  this 
experience  was  his  book:  "Trial  of  L.  A.  Gotwald.")  Dr. 
Gotwald  was  a  frequent  contributor  to  the  "Lutheran  Quar- 
terly" and  other  church  periodicals,  and  published  two  vol- 
umes of  sermons  ("Sermons  for  Festival  Days"  and  "Joy  in 
the  Divine  Government",  German  Literary  Board,  Burling- 
ton, la.). 

Prof.  E.  J.  Wolf,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  in  Center  Co..  Pa., 
studied  at  Gettysburg  (College  and  Seminary),  and  con- 
tinued his  studies  in  Tuebingen  and  Erlangen.  After  a  pas- 
torate in  Baltimore  he  was  called  to  the  chair  of  Church 
History  and  New  Testament  Exegesis  at  Gettysburg  (1873). 
This  was  done  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Browm,  who  recog- 
nized his  extraordinary  talents.  He  held  this  position  until 
his  death.  Being  an  earnest  student  of  the  doctrinal  litera- 
ture of  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  helped  to  establish  sound 
doctrinal  foundations  for  the  General  Synod  after  the  dis- 
ruption at  Fort  Wayne.  His  trumpet  sounded  a  clear  note 
at  all  conventions  of  the  General  Synod,  and  his  literary 
contributions  were  marked  by  strong  convictions.  He  pub- 
lished a  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  and 
translated  three  volumes  of  Xebe's  "Sermons  on  the  Peri- 
copes"  into  a  condensed  English  edition.  He  died  January 
10.  1905. 

Prof.  M.  Valentine,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  born  January  1, 
1825,  at  Uniontown,  Md.     He  entered  Pennsylvania  College, 


200  THE    GENERAL   SYNOD.  §13 

Gettysburg  (1844),  whence  he  graduated  with  honors  in  1850, 
delivering  on  that  occasion  the  Greek  oration.  He  served 
congregations  at  Winchester,  Va.,  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  and  Read- 
ing, Pa.,  until  1866.  When  only  forty-one  years  old,  he  was 
called  to  the  chair  of  Church  History  and  New  Testament 
Exegesis  at  Gettysburg.  Soon  afterwards,  at  the  death  of 
Dr.  H.  L.  Baugher,  Sen.,  he  was  made  president  of  Pennsyl- 
vania College,  and  held  this  position  for  sixteen  years. 
Here  he  distinguished  himself  by  his  thoroughness  as  a 
teacher  in  philosophy.  He  was  an  author  of  works  of 
philosophy,  and  was  lucid  in  expressing  his  thoughts. 
He  published  three  volumes:  "Theoretical  Ethics,"  "Natural 
Theology"  and  "Christian  Faith  and  Life".  His  baccalau- 
reate addresses  (published)  are  masterpieces  of  mature 
thought.  After  the  death  of  Dr.  C.  A.  Stork  (successor  to 
to  Dr.  Brown)  Dr.  Valentine  became  professor  of  Systematic 
Theology  in  the  seminary  (1884).  He  was  a  positive  theolo- 
gian, with  a  leaning,  however,  to  a  Melanchthonian  type  of 
Lutheranism,  and  consequently  refusing  to  accept  certain 
features  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  He  vigorously  pro- 
tested against  the  doctrinal  course  of  the  General  Council. 
His  conception  of  "What  the  General  Synod  has  to  stand 
for"  was  ably  set  forth  in  his  contribution  to  the  little 
volume  on  "Distinctive  Doctrines  and  Usages",  etc.  (first 
edition).  His  "Christian  Theology",  published  in  two  vol- 
umes:  immediately  after  his  death,  shows  us  a  theologian 
highly  endowed  as  a  philosophic  thinker,  who  has  put  upon 
a  work  of  Dogmatics  the  stamp  of  his  own  individuality. 

Prof.  J.  W.  Richard,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  born  February  14, 
1843,  near  Winchester,  Va.,  received  his  preparatory  educa- 
tion at  Roanoke  College,  entered  Pennsylvania  College  in 
1865,  and  graduated  from  the  theological  seminary  at  Get- 
tysburg in  1871.  He  became  professor  at  Carthage  College 
(Carthage,  111.)  in  1873  and  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Church 
Extension  in  1883.  In  1885  he  was  called  as  professor  of 
theology  to  Wittenberg  Seminary.  In  1889  he  accepted  a 
chair  at  Gettysburg,  where  he  died  March  7,  1909.  He  was 
especially  interested  in  historical  researches  and  centered 
his   attention   upon   the   confessional  questions   of  the   Lu- 


§    17,  B10GR.\PHICAL    NOTES.  20I 

theran  Church.  He  wrote  a  biography  of  Melanchthon. 
From  1898  to  1909  (the  year  of  his  death)  he  was  editor  of 
the  "Lutheran  Quarterly",  to  which  he  made  many  contribu- 
tions. In  its  issue  of  Oct.,  1909,  was  given  a  list  of  his  wri- 
tings. He  leaned  toward  Melanchthonianism  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  tendencies  of  the  General  Council,  he  aimed  to 
crystallize  into  a  permanent  platform  the  unsettled  con- 
fessional condition  of  the  General  Synod  between  1864 
(York,  Pa.)  and  1908  (Richmond  Resolutions).  See  in  this 
connection  his  "Confessional  History  of  the  General  Synod" 
(Luth.  Quarterly,  Oct.  1895),  "Melanchthon  and  the  Augsb. 
Conf."  (Articles  in  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.  1899,  also 
January,  July  and  October  1900).  His  articles  concerning 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  together  with  other  doctrinal 
contributions,  are  found  in  his  most  noteworthy  book  on 
"The  Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church"  (1909). 

Prof.  J.  D.  Severinghaus,  D.  D.,  born  July  22,  1834,  near 
Severinghausen,  Hannover  (Germany),  emigrated  when  six- 
teen years  old  and  came  to  Cincinnati,  O.  He  entered  the 
College  of  Springfield,  O.,  and  graduated  from  the  theolog- 
ical seminary  in  1861.  His  first  charge  was  at  St.  Paris,  O. 
He  afterwards  served  congregations  at  Urbana,  O.,  Wake- 
field, O.,  Richmond,  Ind.,  and  Oswego,  N.  Y.  In  1873  he  went 
to  Chicago  where  he  was  engaged  in  extensive  labors  for 
the  Church  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  In  1869,  immediately 
preceding  his  transfer  from  Richmond  to  Oswego,  he 
founded  the  "Lutherischer  Kirchenfreund".  This  was  shortly 
after  the  rupture  at  Fort  Wayne,  when  the  German  ele- 
ments of  the  General  Synod  were  also  in  a  state  of  con- 
fusion. Around  the  "Kirchenfreund"  he  gathered  the  Ger- 
mans of  the  General  Synod.  Through  his  German  work  he 
became  known  far  and  wide.  He  also  entered  into  nego- 
tiations with  Pastor  Jensen  of  Breklum  (1878)  and  made 
arrangements  whereby  the  students  of  Breklum  entered  the 
field  of  the  Wartburg  and  German  Nebraska  Synods,  just 
as  he  had  formerly  arranged  with  Inspector  Rappard  of  the 
St.  Chrischona-Institute  near  Basel  to  send  graduates  of 
that  school  into  the  Western  fields  of  the  General  Synod. 
In    1883  he   founded  a   seminary   in   Chicago   which   he   con- 


202  THE    GENERAL   SYNOD.  §13 

ducted  under  great  difficulties  for  thirteen  years.  All  of 
this  covers  a  period  of  important  history  (recorded  in  the 
"Lutherischer  Kirchenfreund",  at  one  time  named  "Luther- 
ischer  Hausfreund")  which  we  can  barely  mention  here. 
The  German  work  of  Dr.  Severinghaus  was  much  criticised 
outside  of  the  General  Synod  and  within.  Finally  the  Wart- 
burg  Synod,  together  with  the  German  Nebraska  Synod 
(founded  in  1891),  took  hold  of  the  situation,  edited  the 
"Lutherischer  Zionsbote"  (which  eventually  absorbed  the 
"Lutherischer  Kirchenfreund"),  established  the  German 
Literary  Board  in  Burlington,  Iowa,  and  caused  the 
General  Synod  to  transfer  the  Chicago  seminary  to  Atchi- 
son, Kans.  Dr.  Severinghaus  did  much  valuable  work  for 
the  Germans  of  the  General  Synod.  Two  of  his  books  de- 
serve mentioning:  "Denkschrift  der  General-Synode,"  1875; 
and  "Das  Formelbuch  fuer  die  Deutschen  der  General- 
Synode",  1870,  81,  94.  In  Chicago  he  was  pastor  of  Trinity 
Church  (now  connected  with  the  Iowa  Synod)  and  after- 
wards of  St.  Mark's.  But  his  real  work  was  outside  of  the 
pastorate.     He  died  Oct.  14,  1905,  at  the  age  of  71. 

Prof.  S.  A.  Ort,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  in  Lewistown,  Pa.,  in 
1843,  was  educated  at  Wittenberg  College,  from  which  he 
graduated  with  highest  honors.  He  finished  his  theological 
studies  at  Wittenberg  Seminary  in  1863.  Almost  his  entire 
work  (until  1911)  was  done  in  Wittenberg  College,  where  he 
was  first  teacher  of  Mathematics  in  the  College  and  after- 
wards professor  of  Philosophy  and  Systematic  Theology  in 
the  seminary.  From  1882  to  1900  he  was  president  of  this 
school.  He  was  a  man  of  fine  mentality,  keen  perception 
and  an  orator  of  note.  To  his  students  he  was  an  inspiring 
teacher.  He  took  part  in  the  work  of  the  larger  Church. 
But  he  did  not  write  much.  However,  some  idea  of  the 
kind  of  theology  for  which  he  stood,  which  was  conserva- 
tively Lutheran,  may  be  gathered  from  a  volume  published 
after  his  death:  "Selected  Sermons  and  Addresses"  (Ger- 
man Literary  Board,  Burlington,  la.) 

Pastor  M.  W.  Hamma,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  in  Richland 
County,  O.,  1836,  graduated  from  Wittenberg  College,  1861, 
and  from  the  seminary  in  1862.     He  served  the  congrega- 


§   13  nioGRArmcAL  notes.  203 

tions  of  Euphemia,  O.,  Bucyrus,  O.,  Reading.  Pa.,  Spring- 
field, O.,  and  Altoona,  Pa.  He  was  an  eminent  preacher. 
Being  a  man  of  means  he  donated  $200,000  to  Hamma 
Divinity  School,  thus  becoming  its  greatest  benefactor. 
Through  his  many  travels  he  acquired  a  many-sided  educa- 
tion. While  living  at  Baltimore,  he  was  for  several  years 
president  of  the  Board  of  Home  Missions.  He  died  in 
Springfield,  O.,  in  1913. 

Prof.  D.  H.  Bauslin,  D.  D.,  born  in  Winchester,  Va.,  Jan- 
uary 21,  1854,  studied  in  Wittenberg  College  and  Seminary 
and  entered  the  niini.stry  in  1878.  He  served  the  congrega- 
tions of  Tippecanoe  City,  O.  (1878-81);  Bucyrus,  O.  (1881-9), 
Springfield,  O.  (1889-93  and  Canton,  O.  (1893-95).  He  be- 
came professor  of  Practical  Theology  and  Church  History 
at  Wittenberg  Seminary,  succeeding  Dr.  L.  A.  Gotwald.  In 
1901  he  became  editor  of  "The  Lutheran  World",  and  con- 
tinued in  this  work  until  1912  when  this  conservative  organ 
of  the  General  Synod  was  merged  into  "Lutheran  Church 
Work"  (official  organ  of  the  General  Synod).  Dr.  Bauslin 
ranks  first  among  the  leading  ministers  of  the  General 
Synod.  He  has  written  valuable  articles,  mostly  published 
in  the  "Lutheran  Quarterly".  Very  popular  is  his  little 
volume:    "Is  the  Ministry  an  attractive  Vocation?" 

Rev.  Geo.  U.  Wenner,  D.  D.,  born  at  Bethlehem,  Pa.. 
May  17th,  1844,  studied  at  Yale,  Gettysburg  and  graduated 
from  Union  Theol.  Seminary  1868.  From  that  time  on 
he  has  been  pastor  of  Christ  Church  in  New  York.  Since 
1883  he  served  as  chairman  of  the  liturgical  committee  of  the 
General  Synod,  and  has  done  valuable  work  in  the  creation 
of  the  "Common  Service"  and  the  "Ministerial  Acts".  He 
has  been  a  frequent  contributor  to  the  church  papers  (espe- 
cially Lutheran  Quarterly)  on  liturgical  subjects.  He  wrote 
a  book,  "Religious  Education  and  the  Public  School"  (1907), 
in  which  he  proposed  that  Wednesdays  should  be  given  free 
for  religious  instruction. 

Prof.  John  A.  Singmaster,  D.  D.,  who  at  the  time  of  this 
writing  is  president  of  the  General  Synod,  was  born  in 
Macungie,  Lehigh  Co..  Pa.,  Aug.  31,  1852,  and  graduated  from 


204  THE    GENERAL   SYNOD.  §13 

College  (1873)  and  Seminary  (1876)  at  Gettysburg.  He 
served  congregations  at  Schuylkill  Haven,  Pa.  (1876-82), 
Macungie,  Pa.  (1882-6),  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (1887-90),  AUentown, 
Pa.  (1890-1900).  Since  1900  he  has  been  Professor  of  Systematic 
Theology  and  since  1906  (after  the  retirement  of  Dr.  Val- 
entine) President  of  the  General  Synod's  theological  sem- 
inary at  Gettysburg.  He  is  editor  in  chief  of  the  "Lutheran 
Quarterly;"  also  author  of  the  article  on  the  General  Synod 
in  the  fourth  edition  of  "Distinctive  Doctrines  and  Usages 
of  the  General  Bodies  of  the  Ev.  Luth.  Church  in  the  United 
States"  (cf.  Literature,  p.  4). 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  UNITED  SYNOD  OF  THE  SOUTH. 


§  14.     The  Origin  of  the  Synod. 

This  general  body,  comprising  the  Lutheran  synods 
of  the  Southern  States,  bears  its  present  name  only 
since   the  year   1886. 

1.  An  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Lutheran 
synods  in  the  South  has  already  been  given  in  §  5, 
2,  5.  The  North  Carolina  Synod  was  organized  in 
1803.  From  this  synod  the  Tennessee  Synod  went 
out  in  1820,  because  the  members  of  the  latter  were 
of  a  positive  Lutheran  tendency,  and  disapproved  of 
the  purpose  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to  take 
part  in  the  organization  of  the  General  Synod  (§ 
5,  5).  The  South  Carolina  Synod  was  formed  in 
1824,  and  united  with  the  General  Synod  in  1835. 
The  Virginia  Synod  was  organized  in  1829.  (From 
its  midst  came  such  men  as  Drs.  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
J.  G.  Morris,  C.  P.  Krauth).  In  1841  a  Southwest 
Virginia  Sjmod,  and  in  1846  the  Mississippi  Synod, 
which  at  present  numbers  only  seven  pastors  and 
twelve  churches,  were  formed.  The  Synod  of  Georgia, 
embracing  the  States  of  Georgia  and  Florida,  came 
into  existence  in  1860.  In  the  same  year  the  Holston 
Synod  (so  called  after  the  Holston  River  in  Ten- 
nessee), an  offshoot  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  was 
organized. 

(205; 


206  THE   UNITED  SYNOD  OF  THE  SOUTH.  §    14,^ 

2.  Four  of  these  synods,  namely,  the  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  West  Virginia, 
left  the  General  Synod  in  1863,  and  in  the  following 
year  (in  conjunction  with  the  Synod  of  Georgia)  at 
Concord,  N.  C,  organized  the  General  Synod  of  the 
Ev.  Luth.  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  of  Am- 
erica (§  10,  2).  The  reason  for  this  action  was  as 
follows :  In  1861  the  Southern  States  seceded,  and 
the  Civil  War  with  its  horrors  began.  The  General 
Synod  passed  resolutions  condemning  the  originators 
and  advocates  of  the  war.  The  southern  pastors  and 
congregations  regarded  the  resolutions  as  being  aimed 
at  them.  They  believed  that  the  political  separation 
between  the  South  and  the  North  would  be  per- 
manent. They  therefore  resolved  upon  an  ecclesias- 
tical separation  also.  But  when  the  newly  formed 
body  met  again  two  years  later,  the  war  was  over 
and  the  Union  of  the  States  restored.  It  was  a  ques- 
tion now  whether  the  two  synodical  bodies  should 
unite  again.  Since  at  this  time  the  General  Synod 
was  distracted  by  the  confessional  controversies,  and 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  withdrawn  from  it;  and 
since  the  southern  synods  desired  to  place  themselves 
upon  a  more  positive  confessional  basis  than  that  held 
by  the  General  Synod,  it  was  resolved  to  continue 
as  a  separate  body,  and  simply  to  change  the  name 
to  correspond  with  the  change  in  political  relations. 
The  name  adopted  was,  "The  Evang.  Luth.  General 
Synod  in  North  America,"  which  was,  however,  soon 
changed  to  "The  General  Synod  of  the  Evang.  Luth. 
Church  of  the  South."  The  reasons  which  induced  it 
to  assume  the  name  which  it  now  bears  will  be  given 
in  the  following  paragraph. 


{<    14,''  ORIGIN    OF    THF,    SYNOD.  20/ 

3.     Two  of  the  s\  nods  enumerated  above  (§  14,  1  ), 
namely,  the  Tennessee  Synod  and  the  Holston  Synod, 

had,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  refrained  from  joining 
the  General  Synod,  and  did  not  unite  with  this  gen- 
eral body  in  the  South.  ^■"  Their  confessional  stand- 
point had  caused  them  to  hold  themselves  aloof.  After 
their  separation  from  the  northern  General  Synod, 
the  other  synods  of  the  South  developed  a  more  de- 
cided Lutheran  consciousness.  Their  antithesis  to  the 
Tennessee  Synod  disappeared  more  and  more.  More- 
over, the  synods  south  of  the  Potomac  became  con- 
vinced, that,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  inestimable  ad- 
vantages of  concentration,  they  must  either  unite  in 
the  organization  of  a  body  which  should  include  the 
greatest  possible  number  of  southern  synods,  or  else 
as  individual  synods  seek  union  with  the  larger  eccles- 
iastical bodies  of  the  North.  Since  the  confessional 
differences  had  almost  entirely  disappeared,  the  way 
was  open  for  the  former  course.  In  1867  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  already  sent  a  representative  to  the 
convention  of  the  Southern  General  Synod,  to  enter 
into  negotiations  respecting  a  union.  Although  this 
approach  was  hailed  with  joy,  nineteen  years  elapsed 
before  a  union  actually  took  place.  On  November  12 
and  13,  1884,  delegates  from  all  the  Southern  synods 
finally  came  together  to  a  conference  at  Salisbury, 
N.  C,  in  order  to  deliberate  on  the  question  of  an 
organic  union.  This  time  there  was  a  positive  result. 
A  doctrinal  basis  was  agreed  upon,  in  accordance 
with  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  accepted  as 
the  only  rule  of   faith  and   life,  and   the  ecumenical 


'"The  little   Mississippi   Synod   also  did   not  join   till   later,   but   this 
was  not  due  to  conscientious  scruples. 


208  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  OF  THE   SOUTH.  §    H,^ 

symbols,  together  with  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  a  correct  and  faithful  exhibition  of  the 
doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture  in  matters  of  faith  and 
practice.  The  other  confessions  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord were  declared  to  be  a  correct  and  scriptural  in- 
terpretation of  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  and  in  full  harmony  with  one  and 
the  same  scriptural  faith.  After  an  understanding 
was  reached  on  this  important  point,  only  the  for- 
malities remained  to  be  arranged.  This  was  done  at 
the  next  meeting,  June  23,  1886.  From  this  time  on 
we  have  the  "United  Synod  of  the  South,"  this  be- 
ing the  name  which  the  new  general  body  adopted. 
It  numbers  274  pastors,  with  488  congregations  and 
preaching-points,  and  52,188  communicants. 


§  15.    Characterization. 

1.  In  its  doctrinal  tendency  this  body  stands 
about  midway  between  the  General  Synod  and  the 
General  Council.  In  1878  it  arranged  for  an  exchange 
of  delegates  with  the  General  Synod,  after  having 
assured  itself  by  a  formal  inquiry  that  the  resolutions 
passed  at  the  time  of  the  civil  war  (§  14,  2)  were 
not  meant  to  question  the  Christian  character  of  the 
southern  pastors. 

2.  In  the  matter  of  Church  Polity  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  General  Synod  of  the  South  had  decided 
that  the  general  body  should  have  legislative  and 
judicial  prerogatives.  This  was  changed  so  as  to 
read  that  in  the  internal  affairs  of  the  district  synods 
the  new  general  body,  namely,  the  United  Synod  of 


S    15,"  CHARACTERIZATION.  2O9 

the  South,  should  have  only  advisory  authority ;  but 
that  on  general  matters  of  the  Church,  such  as  pro- 
viding its  literature,  conducting  its  theological  sem- 
inaries and  its  foreign  and  home  missionary  work,  it 
should  have  legislative  power  (comp.  §§  11,  3 ;  27,  1  ; 
29.  3a). 

3.  The  United  Synod  of  the  South  deserves  special 
credit  for  the  preparation  of  the  Common  Service 
for  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country.  The  first 
action  looking  toward  the  preparation  of  such  an 
order  of  service  as  a  liturgical  bond  of  union  among 
the  Lutheran  synods  of  America,  was  taken  by  the 
General  Synod  of  the  South.  Dr.  Bachmann  having, 
as  early  as  1870,  referred  to  the  importance  of  this 
matter  for  the  English  speaking  Lutheran  Church  of 
America,  the  Synod  in  1876  appointed  a  committee 
which,  in  conjunction  with  similar  committees  from 
the  General  Synod  and  the  General  Council,  should, 
on  the  basis  of  the  consensus  of  the  pure  Lutheran 
liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  prepare  a  uniform 
order  of  service  for  the  three  bodies.  The  final  re- 
sult of  this   action  was  the  "Common  Service." 


§  16.     Institutions  and  Work. 

1.     Educational  Institutions,     a)   The  Theological 

Seminary  of  the  United  Synod  of  the  South  is  located 
at  Mt.  Pleasant,  S.  C,  near  Charleston.  Although 
this  institution  is  still  in  its  formative  period,  it  has 
behind  it  a  long  and  somewhat  complicated  history. 
As  early  as  1830  the  South  Carolina  Synod  founded 
14 


2IO  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  OF  THE  SOUTH.  §    l6," 

a  theological  seminary  at  Lexington,  S.  C,  with  Dr. 
Hazelius  (§  6,  1)  at  its  head  from  1833  till  his  death 
in  1853.  Then  the  South  Carolina  Synod  carried  on 
the  work  in  connection  with  its  college  at  Newberry, 
S.  C.  (see  below).  In  the  year  1872  it  combined 
the  work  of  its  theological  seminary  with  that  of  the 
General  Synod  of  the  South  at  Salem,  Va.  When 
this  seminary  was  abolished  in  1884,  the  South  Caro- 
lina Synod  again  inaugurated  a  theological  depart- 
ment in  connection  with  its  college  at  Newberry.  In 
1892  it  gave  the  work  over  into  the  hands  of  the 
United  Synod  of  the  South,  which  continued  it  for 
a  while  longer  at  Newberry,  and  then  transferred  it, 
in  1898,  to  Mt.  Pleasant,  near  Charleston,  thence  to 
Columbia,  S.  C,  where  the  seminary  is  conducted  at 
the  present  time  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  A.  G. 
Voigt,  who  has  associated  with  him  as  fellow-pro- 
fessors. Dr.  L.  G.  M.  Miller  and  Dr.  J.  G.  Seegers. 

b.  Colleges.  Newberry  College,  which  was  be- 
gun in  1832  at  Lexington,  S.  C,  by  the  South  Caro- 
lina Synod,  and  opened  as  a  regular  college  in  1859 
at  Newberry,  S.  C,  suffered  heavily  during  the  civil 
war,  its  buildings  being  almost  totally  destroyed.  In 
1868  it  was  transferred  to  Walhalla,  S.  C,  but  was 
brought  back  to  Newberry  again  in  1877.  Congress 
granted  the  institution  an  indemnity  of  $15,000  in 
1878.  It  is  attended  by  about  160  students.  —  Roan- 
oke College  was  founded  by  the  Virginia  Synod  in 
1842  near  Mt.  Tabor,  Va.  In  1847  it  was  removed 
to  Salem,  Va.  Dr.  D.  F.  Bittle  was  president  of  the 
institution  for  twenty-three  years.  In  1878  Dr.  J.  D. 
Dreher  became  president,  and  in  1903  Dr.  J.  A.  More- 
head.      It   numbers    300    students.  —  Lenoir   College, 


§    16,"  INSTITUTIONS   AND   WORK.  21  T 

founded  in  1891,  is  meant  chiefly  to  meet  the  wants 
of  the  Tennessee  vSynod.     It  has  250  students. 

2.  Mission  Work.  The  Home  Missionsury  Work 
of  the  United  Synod  of  the  South  is  under  the  di- 
rection of  a  "Board  of  Missions  and  Church  Exten- 
sion." Since  1893  a  Foreign  Mission  has  been  con- 
ducted by  the  United  Synod  in  Japan  (Saga),  which  is 
now  extended  to  other  cities  on  the  island  of  Kiushiu. 

Biographical  Sketches. 

1.  The  Henkels.  Gerhard  Henkel,  the  head  of  the 
American  branch  of  this  family  of  pastors,  was  chaplain  of 
Duke  Maurice  of  Saxony,  and  was  exiled  when  the  Duke 
went  over  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  was  the  first 
Lutheran  preacher  in  Virginia,  going  from  there  to  Penn- 
sylvania (§  3,  6).  His  grandson  was  Paul  Henkel,  whose 
immediate  descendants  constitute  the  well-known  family  of 
Lutheran  ministers.  He  was  ordained  in  1792  by  the  Min- 
isterium  of  Pennsylvania,  and  became  pastor  at  New  Mar- 
ket, Va.  He  took  part  in  the  organization  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  (§  5,  2),  and  the  Ohio  Synod  (§  5,  2).  He 
was  the  author  of  some  excellent  books,  both  in  German 
and  in  English,  and  died  at  New  Market,  Va.,  in  1825.  The 
second  and  fourth  of  his  sons,  Philip  and  David,  took  part 
in  the  organization  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  (§  5,  5).  David 
was  especially  gifted,  and  wrote  a  number  of  valuable 
works.  His  third  son,  Ambrotius,  also  a  minister,  con- 
ducted the  celebrated  Lutheran  publishing  house  in  New 
Market.  His  fourth  and  sixth  sons,  Andrew  and  Charles, 
were  pastors  in  Ohio.  The  Henkels  knew  how  to  employ 
the  press  in  the  service  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  old- 
est son  of  Paul  Henkel,  Solomon,  a  physician  of  note,  had 
already  possessed  a  printing  press,  by  means  of  which  he 
placed  Lutheran  books  on  the  market.  His  son,  another 
physician,  conceived  the  idea  of  translating  and  publishing 
the  Book  of  Concord  —  a  plan  which  was  carried  out  under 
the  direction  of  his  uncle,  the  Rev.  Ambrosius  Henkel  men- 


212  THE  UNITED  SYNOD  OF  THE  SOUTH.  §    l6 

tioned  above.  Up  to  1903  the  publishing  house  in  New 
Market  was  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Socrates  Henkel,  a  son  of 
the  Rev.  David  Henkel  previously  mentioned.  The  major- 
ity of  the  sons  of  the  Henkels  that  have  been  enumerated 
here  also  entered  the  ministry.  Baptismal  names  like 
"Eusebius,"  "Polycarp,"  "Irenaeus,"  "Ambrosius,"  reveal  the 
spirit  of  consecration  to  the  service  of  the  Church  which 
must  have  prevailed  in  this  honorable  family  for  genera- 
tions. 

2.  Dr.  John  Bachman,  distinguished  for  his  learning 
and  practical  talent,  was  born  in  1790  in  Rhinebeck,  N.  Y. 
His  theological  studies  were  pursued  under  the  direction  of 
Dr.  Quitman  (§  6,  3).  But,  unlike  his  teacher,  he  was  a  posi- 
tive Lutheran.  From  the  time  of  his  ordination  till  his 
death  in  1874,  a  period  of  fifty-six  years,  he  was  pastor  of 
St.  John's  Church  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  In  all  important 
transactions  of  his  time  he  took  part  as  a  leader.  During 
the  Civil  War,  in  which  he  was  an  enthusiastic  supporter  of 
the  South,  his  congregation  became  scattered.  But  he  soon 
built  it  up  again.  He  was  prominent  in  the  field  of  natural 
science  and  wrote  books  on  American  birds  and  quadrupeds 
which  secured  for  him  the  friendship  of  Humboldt  and 
Agassiz,  and  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  from  the 
University  of  Berlin.  A  valuable  scientific  collection  was 
destroyed  and  he  himself  maltreated  during  the  war  by 
some  regiments  of  Sherman's  army.  He  wrote  a  book  on 
"The  Unity  of  the  Human  Race,"  and,  during  the  conflict 
over  the  Lutheran  confession,  a  "Defense  of  Luther." 

Prof.  A.  G.  Voigt,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  born  in  Philadel- 
phia, January  22,  1850.  He  received  his  education  at  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  also  at  Mount  Airy,  the  sem- 
inary of  the  General  Council,  and  at  Erlangen.  He  entered 
the  ministry  in  1883,  and  served  the  congregations  of  Mt. 
Holly,  N.  J.  (1883-85)  and  of  Wilmington,  N.  C.  (1898-1903). 
From  1885  to  1889,  and  also  from  1891-98,  he  was  theological 
professor  at  Newberry,  S.  C.  He  served  as  professor  at 
Thiel  College  from  1889-91.  Since  1906  he  has  been  dean  of 
the    Seminary    of    the    United    Synod    of    the    South,    now 


§     l6  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  2I3 

located  at  Columbia,  S.  C.    He  is  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
"Lutheran  Commentary". 

Pastor  W.  H.  Greever,  D.  D.,  born  December  18,  1870, 
in  Burke's  Garden,  Va.,  studied  in  Roanoke  College  and  in 
the  seminary  of  the  Council  in  Mount  Airy,  Pa.  He  was 
ordained  in  1896,  and  served  the  congregations  of  Bluefield, 
W.  Va.  (1894-01)  and  Columbia,  S.  C.  (1901-08).  From  1904- 
1914  he  was  editor  of  "The  Lutheran  Visitor",  the  official 
organ  of  the  United  Synod  of  the  South.  Since  1914  he  has 
been  editor-in-chief  of  "American  Lutheran  Survey,"  a 
weekly  magazine  of  intersynodical  significance,  the  "Literary 
Digest"  of  the  Lutheran  church  in  America. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL. 


§  17.    Organization. 

1.  The  withdrawal  of  the  delegates  of  the  Minis- 
terium  of  Pennsylvania  from  the  General  Synod  oc- 
curred in  May,  1866,  at  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana  (§  19, 
3).  A  few  weeks  later  the  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania met  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  ratified  the  action 
of  the  delegates,  and  formally  severed  its  connection 
with  the  General  Synod.  At  the  same  convention, 
the  Ministerium  authorized  the  issuing  of  a  call  to 
all  synods  which  confess  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  new  general 
body  upon  distinctively  Lutheran  principles.  This 
call  was  prepared  by  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth.  ^'^  In  re- 
sponse to  this  call  a  convention  was  held  at  Read- 
ing, Pa.,  December  12-14,  1866,  attended  by  delegates 
of  thirteen  synods.  ^"    Professor  M.  Loy,  of  the  Joint 

"1  Reprinted  in  Documentary  History  of  the  General  Council,  by 
Dr.  S.  E.  Ochsenford,  General  Council  Publication  Board,  Philadelphia, 
1912,  p.  128  ff. 

i"The  following  synods  were  represented:  The  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania,  New  York  Ministerium,  Pittsburgh  Synod,  Minnesota 
Synod,  and  the  English  Synod  of  Ohio.  Besides  these,  all  of  which 
had  previously  belonged  to  the  General  Synod,  delegates  were  present 
from  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  English  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  Synod 
of  Wisconsin,  Synod  of  Michigan,  Iowa,  Canada,  Norwegian,  and  even 
from  the  Missouri  Synod.  These  synods  represented  891  ministers, 
1,612  congregations  and  209,707  communicants.  These  statistics  indicate 
how  strong  numerically  Lutheranism  then  was  outside  of  the  General 
Synod.  If  only  these  could  have  been  united  into  one  body.  Hope 
was  entertained  that  this  would  be  possible,  but  it  was  shown  shortly 
afterwards  that  this  aim  could  not  be  attained. 

(214) 


§     IJ,'-  ORGANIZATION.  215 

Synod  of  Ohio,  preached  the  opening  sermon,  which 
was  pubHshed  in  the  proceedings  of  this  historical 
convention.  It  was  based  on  the  text,  1  Cor.  1,  10. 
The  theme  was  :  "The  Conditions  of  Christian  Union." 
These  are:  1.  The  same  faith  in  the  same  truth.  2. 
The  same  confession  of  the  same  faith.  3.  The  same 
judgment  under  the  same  confession.  ^^^ 

2.  The  principal  work  of  this  convention  was 
the  discussion  and  adoption  of  the  Theses  on  "The 
Fundamental  Principles  of  Faith  and  Church  Polity," 
prepared  by  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth.  These  Theses  were 
unanimously  adopted,  and  it  was  resolved  that,  after 
ten  of  the  participating  synods  had  adopted  these 
articles,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  President,  Pastor 
G.  Bassler,  should  issue  a  call  for  the  first  conven- 
tion of  the  new  body,  under  the  title  of  the"General 
Council  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  North 
America." 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES. 

"We  hold  the  following  principles  touching  the 
faith  of  the  Church  and  its  polity  ^'*  to  be  funda- 
mental and  of  necessity  presupposed  in  any  genuine 
Union  of  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synods : 

"L  There  must  be  and  abide  through  all  time  one  holy 
Christian  Church,  which  is  the  assembly  of  all  believers, 
among  whom  the  Gospel  is  purely  preached,  and  the  Holy 
Sacraments  are  administered,  as  the  Gospel  demands. 

"To  the  true  Unity  of  the  Church  it  is  sufficient  that 
there   be    agreement    touching   the    doctrine   of   the    Gospel, 


*"  See  Documentary  History,  p.  131.  A  German  translation  of  the 
sermon   is   also   found    in   the   German    Minutes,    pp.   22-33. 

'"'  The  paragraphs  referring  to  "Ecclesiastical  Power  and  Church 
Polity"  are  not  reprinted  in  this  connection.  They  are  found  in  Fritschcl 
II,  313-319;  in  English  in  Dr.  Jacobs'  History,  p.  474  f ;  and  in  Docu- 
mentary  History  of  the   General   Council,   p.    136  ff. 


2l6  THE  GENERAL   COUNCIL.  §    I7,* 

that  it  be  preached  in  one  accord,  in  it3  pure  sense,  and  that 
the  Sacraments  be  administered  conformably  to  God's 
Word. 

"II.  The  true  Unity  of  a  particular  Church,  in  virtue  of 
which  men  are  truly  members  of  one  and  the  same  Church, 
and  by  which  any  Church  abides  in  real  identity,  and  is 
entitled  to  a  continuation  of  her  name,  is  unity  in  doctrine 
and  faith  and  in  the  Sacraments,  to  wit:  That  she  continue 
to  teach  and  to  set  forth,  and  that  her  true  members  em- 
brace from  the  heart  and  use  the  articles  of  faith  and  the 
Sacraments  as  they  were  held  and  administered  when  the 
Church  came  into  distinctive  being  and  received  a  distinctive 
name.  i 

"III.  The  Unity  of  the  Church  is  witnessed  to,  and 
made  manifest  in  the  solemn,  public,  and  official  Confes- 
sions which  are  set  forth,  to  wit:  The  generic  Unity  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  general  Creeds,  and  the  specific 
Unity  of  pure  parts  of  the  Christian  Church  in  their  specific 
Creeds,  one  chief  object  of  both  classes  of  which  Creeds  is, 
that  Christians  who  are  in  the  Unity  of  faith  may  know 
each  other  as  such,  and  may  have  a  visible  bond  of  fel- 
lowship. 

"IV.  That  Confessions  may  be  such  a  testimony  of 
Unity  and  bond  of  Union  they  must  be  accepted  in  every 
statement  of  doctrine  in  their  own  true,  native,  original 
and  only  sense.  Those  who  set  them  forth  and  subscribe 
them  must  not  only  agree  to  use  the  same  words,  but  must 
use  and  understand  these  words  in  one  and  the  same  sense. 

"V.  The  Unity  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  as 
a  portion  of  the  holy  Christian  Church,  depends  upon  her 
abiding  in  one  and  the  same  faith,  in  confessing  which  she 
obtained  her  distinctive  being  and  name,  her  political  recog- 
nition and  her  history. 

"VI.  The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is  by  pre- 
eminence the  confession  of  that  faith.  The  acceptance  of 
its  doctrines  and  the  avowal  of  them  without  equivocation 
or  mental  reservation  make,  mark  and  identify  that  Church 
which  alone  in  the  true,  original,  historical,  and  honest 
sense  of  the  term  is  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 

"VII.  The  only  churches,  therefore,  of  any  land  which 
are  properly  in  the  Unity  of  that  Communion,  and  by  con- 


§    \J,-  ORGANIZATION.  217 

sequence  entitled  to  its  name,  Evangelical  Lutheran,  are 
those  which  sincerely  hold  and  truthfully  confess  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession. 

"VIII.  We  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  original  sense  as 
throughout  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  which 
God's  Word  is  the  only  rule.  We  accept  its  statements  of 
truth  as  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  Canonical  Scrip- 
tures: we  reject  the  errors  it  condemns,  and  believe  that 
all  which  it  commits  to  the  liberty  of  the  Church  of  right 
belongs  to  that  liberty. 

"IX.  In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  we  declare  our  convic- 
tion that  the  other  Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church,  inasmuch  as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its 
system  of  doctrine  and  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity 
pure  and  scriptural.  Pre-eminent  among  such  accordant 
pure  and  scriptural  statements  of  doctrine,  by  their  intrinsic 
excellence,  by  the  great  and  necessary  ends  for  which  they 
were  prepared,  by  their  historical  position,  and  by  the  gen- 
eral judgment  of  the  Church,  are  these:  The  Apology  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  the  Cate- 
chisms of  Luther,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  all  of  which 
are,  with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  perfect 
harmony  of  one  and  the  same  scriptural  faith." 

3.  The  first  convention  of  the  General  Council, 
temporarily  organized  at  Reading,  was  held  at  Fort 
Wayne,  November,  1867,  where,  in  the  previous  year, 
the  breach  had  occurred,  and  where  a  few  years  later 
(1871)  the  members  of  the  synods  of  Ohio,  Missouri, 
Illinois,  Minnesota,  and  of  the  Norwegians  held  the 
convention  that  resulted  in  the  organization  of  the 
Synodical  Conference.  At  this  convention  it  was 
shown  that  the  following  synods  had  adopted  the  Con- 
fessional Basis  of  the  Reading  convention,  and  thereby 
acknowledged  themselves  as  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral  Council:      1.   The   Ministerium   of   Pennsvlvania 


2l8  THE   GENERAL   COUNCIL.  §    \'J ^ 

(three-fourths  English) ;  2.  The  New  York  Minis- 
terium  (German)  ;  3.  The  Pittsburgh  Synod  (three- 
fourths  EngHsh) ;  4.  The  EngHsh  Synod  of  Ohio ;  5. 
The  Synod  of  Wisconsin  (German)  ;  6.  The  English 
District  Synod  of  Ohio ;  7.  The  Michigan  Synod 
(German)  ;  8.  The  Swedish  Augustana  Synod;  9.  The 
Minnesota  Synod  (German) ;  10.  The  Canada  Synod 
(German) ;  11.  The  Synod  of  Illinois  (German) ; 
12.  The  Iowa  Synod  (German)."'*  The  Missouri 
Synod  was  not  represented  at  this  convention.  Dr. 
Walther  and  Dr.  Sihler,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
convention  at  Reading  (1866),  had  advised  against 
the  organization  of  a  new  General  Body  at  that 
time.  "®  They  argued  in  favor  of  free  conferences. 
The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  had  sent  delegates,  but 
was  not  prepared  to  unite  fully  with  the  new  body, 
because  they  claimed  that,  despite  the  adoption  of  the 
Confessional  Basis,  there  still  existed  un-Lutheran 
practices  in  various  synods.  The  Synod  asked  the 
General  Council  for  a  declaration  on  the  following 
"Four  Points,"  namely:  1.  Concerning  Chiliasm.  2. 
Concerning  altar  fellowship  ("Mixed  Communion"). 
3.  Concerning  pulpit  fellowship.  4.  Concerning  secret 
societies.  Concerning  the  last  three  points,  the  Synod 
of  Iowa  also  desired  a  declaration.  ^'^^  Because  the 
Council  was  not  prepared  to  give  a  decisive  answer 
to  the  question  of  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship,  "^  the 
delegates  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  declined  to 
join  the  Council,  and  before  the  close  of  the  conven- 
tion the  delegates  of  the  Iowa  Synod  (Prof.  Gottfr. 


i'5  Tije  Texas  Synod   (German)   was  admitted  the   following  year. 
"'  Lutherische  Herold,  29  December,   1866. 

1"  Why    not    also    concerning    the    first   point?      See   §23,    IL,    5. 
-"  For    the    reasons,    see    §  18. 


§     I/."  ORUANIZATIOX.  2ig 

Fritschel,  the  German  secretary)  also  declared  that 
their  Synod  could  not  fully  unite  with  the  body.  '^" 
Nevertheless,  this  Synod,  since  it  had  accepted  the 
Confessional  Basis,  was  granted  a  seat  and  voice  in 
the  General  Council.  A  special  difficulty  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  existed  in  the  fact 
that  the  English  District  Synod  of  Ohio  was  admitted 
into  the  Council  against  the  wish  of  Ohio.  After 
the  next  convention  of  the  General  Council,  at  Pitts- 
burg, Pa.,  1868,  when  the  "Four  Points"  were  again 
discussed  and  action  taken,  the  Wisconsin  Synod 
withdrew  (§§  21  and  25,  1)  ;  after  the  convention 
at  Akron,  Ohio,  1871  (see  below),  the  Synod  of  Min- 
nesota (§§21  and  25,  2)  and  the  Illinois  Synod  with- 
drew. These  synods  were  incorporated  in  the  Missouri 
Synod  (§  10,  3).  In  the  year  1887,  the  Michigan 
Synod  also  severed  its  connection  with  the  Council. 
The  Texas  Synod,  admitted  in  1868,  became  a  Dis- 
trict of  the  Iowa  Synod  in  1895.    Concerning  the  other 

"» The  Iowa  Synod  demanded  that  the  General  Council  should  ex- 
pressly condemn  "all  church  fellowship  with  such  as  are  not  Lutherans; 
for  example,  ministers  serving  congregations  that  are  mixed  and  not 
purely  Lutheran,  receiving  such  congregations  and  their  pastors  into 
synodical  connection,  the  admission  of  those  of  a  different  faith  to  the 
privilege  of  communion,  the  permission  of  those  not  Lutheran  to  occupy 
our  pulpits,"  etc.  The  Council  was  asked  to  declare  that  "according  to 
the  Word  of  (lod,  church  discipline  be  exercised,  especially  at  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Holy  Communion,  and  be  likewise  exercised  towards 
those  who  are  members  of  secret  societies."  See  German  Minutes,  p. 
13.  Documentary  History,  p.  161.  The  following  official  answer  was 
given  by  the  Council:  "That  the  General  Council  is  not  prepared  to 
endorse  the  declaration  of  the  Synod  of  Iowa,  as  a  correct  logical  de- 
duction and  application  of  the  negative  part  of  our  Confessional  Books, 
and  that  we  refer  the  matter  to  the  District  Synoils.  until  such  time 
as  by  the  blessings  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  leadings  of  His 
Providence,  we  shall  be  enabled  throughout  the  whole  General  Council 
and  all  its  churches,  to  see  eye  to  eye  in  all  the  details  of  practice 
and  usage,  towards  the  consummation  of  which  we  will  direct  our 
unceasing    prayers."      Ibidem. 


220  THE  GENERAL   COUNCIL.  §    I/,^ 

synods   which   have   in   later  years   united   with   the 
Council  see  §  19,  7-12. 

Annotation.  An  official  correspondence  between  the 
General  Council  and  the  Missouri  Synod  was  carried  on 
until  the  year  1869.  Missouri  had  desired  free  conferences 
as  preparatory  to  the  organization  of  a  General  Body. 
Thereupon  the  General  Council  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lution at  the  Reading  convention,  in  1866:  "That  the  synods 
represented  in  this  convention,  which  prefer  a  Free  Con- 
ference to  an  immediate  organization,  be  and  hereby  are 
invited  to  send  representatives  to  the  next  meeting,  with 
the  understanding  that  they  have  in  it  all  the  privileges  of 
debate,  and  a  fraternal  comparison  of  views.""".  To  this 
the  Missouri  Synod  replied,  at  its  convention  in  Chicago, 
1867,  that  the  position  of  delegates  from  the  Missouri 
Synod  at  a  regular  convention  of  the  General  Council 
would  be  peculiarly  liable  to  misconception,  and  that  there- 
fore it  must  insist  on  really  free  conferences."*^  The  Gen- 
eral Council,  at  the  Pittsburg  convention,  1868,  repeated  its 
former  invitation.  Missouri  again  replied  (Fort  Wayne, 
1869),  that  it  was  not  the  desire  of  the  Missouri  Synod  to 
deal  with  the  General  Council  as  such  and  during  the  ses- 
sions of  the  same,  for  the  reason  that  it  entertained  the 
fear  that,  by  such  a  side-dealing  with  the  matter,  justice 
would  not  be  done.  A  Free  Conference  was  desired,  such 
as  had  been  proposed  before  the  General  Council  was  or- 
ganized. But  even  in  such  a  Free  Conference,  Missourians 
could  participate  only  as  individuals,  not  as  representatives 
of  the  Synod."^  The  General  Council  (1869)  expressed  its 
regret,  in  a  final  reply,  that  the  Missouri  Synod  saw  fit  to 
decline  all  official  dealing  with  the  General  Council  and 
even  all  non-official  dealing  with  it  in  connection  with  its 
regular  conventions.  It  declared  itself  willing  to  receive 
further  proposals,  looking  toward  an  organic  union  of  all 
true  Lutherans  in  this  country.^^  Since  then  there  have 
been  no  official  communications  between  the  two  bodies. 


""  German  Minutes,   p.  20.     Documentary   History,  p.   157. 

"1  Ibidem. 

"2  Cf.    Documentary    History,   p.    158. 

'*3  Documentary   History,   p.   160. 


§    1 8/  ITS    CHARACTER.  221 

§  18.     Character  of  the  Council. 

1)  The  "Four  Points,"  concerning  which  the 
synods  of  Ohio  and  of  Iowa  desired  a  declaration 
already  at  the  first  convention  of  the  Council,  occupied 
a  prominent 'place  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
General  Council,  so  that  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
first  ten  years  of  the  body  constituted  a  history  of 
these  "Four  Points."  The  Council's  answer  to  the 
petition  of  the  Joint  Synod  for  a  declaration  on  the 
designated  "Four  Points"  (§  17,  3)  sets  forth  the 
difference  between  the  General  Council,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  such  synods  as  Ohio  and  Missouri,  on  the 
other.  "*  The  aim  of  the  General  Council  was  to 
be  gradually  educational;  the  other. synods  desired 
thorough-going  disciplinary  regulations.  It  was  no 
light  matter  for  the  newly  organized  body  to  find 
a  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  The  desire  was  to  build 
upon  unequivocal  Lutheran  principles ;  but  what  the 
German  synods  of  the  West  peremptorily  demanded, 
the  more  Americanized  synods  of  the  East,  whose 
congregations  and  ministers  had  an  entirely  different 
history  back  of  them,  could  not  carry  out.  ^®^ 

'"  The  matter  referred  to  here  i.s  presented  in  the  following  para- 
graphs: "That  this  Council  is  aware  of  nothing  in  its  'Fundamental 
Principles  of  Faith  and  Church  Polity'  and  Constitution,  nor  in  the 
relation  it  sustains  to  the  four  questions  raised,  which  justifies  a  doubt 
whether  its  decisions  on  them  all,  when  they  are  brought  up  in  the 
manner  prescribed  in  the  Constitution,  will  be  in  harmony  with  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  Confessions  of  the  Church."  "That  as  soon  as  offi- 
cial evidence  shall  be  presented  to  this  body,  in  the  manner  prescribed 
in  the  Constitution,  that  un-Lutheran  doctrines  or  practices  are  author- 
ized by  the  action  of  any  of  its  synods,  or  by  their  refusal  to  act,  it 
will  weigh  that  evidence,  and,  if  it  finds  they  exist,  use  all  its  con- 
stitutional power  to  convince  the  minds  of  men  in  regard  to  them,  and 
as  speedily  as  possible  to  remove  them."     Documentary   History,  p.  156. 

'"Dr.  Spaeth,  "General  Council,"  p.  25.  Document.nry  History,  p. 
163  ff. 


222  THE   GENERAL  COUNCIL.  §    l8,^ 

The  matter  of  the  rule  concerning  pulpit  and  altar 
fellowship,  or  the  so-called  Galesburg  Rule,  gave 
the  General  Council  special  concern.  Briefly  the 
history  of  this  matter  is  as  follows :  At  the  con- 
vention at  Lancaster,  Ohio,  in  1870,  President  Krauth, 
prompted  by  a  question  on  the  part  of  the  Minnesota 
Synod,  made  the  declaration:  The  Rule  is:  Lu- 
theran pulpits  for  Lutheran  ministers;  Lutheran  al- 
tars for  Lutheran  communiceuits.  At  the  next  con- 
vention, at  Akron,  Ohio,  in  1872,  the  delegates  of 
the  Iowa  Synod  desired  that  this  declaration  should 
be  made  the  official  action  of  the  Council.  In  reply 
the  Council  gave  the  following  declaration: 

"1.  The  Rule  is:  Lutheran  pulpits  are  for  Lutheran 
ministers  only.  Lutheran  altars  are  for  Lutheran  commu- 
nicants only. 

"2.  The  exceptions  to  this  rule  belong  to  the  sphere  of 
privilege,  not  of  right. 

"3.  The  determination  of  the  exceptions  is  to  be  made 
in  consonance  with  these  principles  by  the  conscientious 
judgment  of  the  pastors  as  the  cases  arise. "^'^ 

At  Galesburg,  Illinois  (1875),  the  first  article  of 

the  Akron  declaration,  due  to  resolutions  of  the 
Augustana  Synod  of  a  similar  import,  ^®^  was  re- 
affirmed, but  nothing  was  done  in  reference  to  points 
two  and  three.  ^^^  The  Galesburg  declaration  was 
severely  criticised  in  the  public  press  and  caused 
considerable  disturbance  in  the  Church  for  a  num- 
ber of  years,  principally  because  points  two  and  three 


"'  Documentary    History,    p.    216. 

"'See   Fritschel,   3:326. 

"•  Documentary    History,    p.    217. 


§    iS.'  ITS    CHARACTER.  223 

appeared  to  have  been  set  aside.  Finally,  the  General 
Council  declared  (at  the  Pittsburg  convention,  1889, 
in  reply  to  a  question  presented  by  the  New  York 
Ministerium),  "that  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
the  Galesburg  Rule  by  the  General  Council,  the  dis- 
tinct statement  was  made  that  all  preceding  action 
of  the  General  Council  on  Pulpit  and  Altar  Fellowship 
was  unchanged."  The  formal  action,  taken  at  the 
Pittsburg  convention,  is  as  follows :  "Inasmuch  as 
the  General  Council  has  never  annulled,  rescinded  or 
reconsidered  the  declarations  made  at  Akron,  Ohio, 
in  the  year  1872,  they  still  remain  in  all  their  parts 
and  provisions,  the  action  and  rule  of  the  General 
Council."  ^^^  It  is  therefore  an  error  to  say,  as  is 
generally  done,  that  the  General  Council  rests  upon 
the  Galesburg  Rule ;  according  to  its  final  action  it 
rests  upon  the  Akron  resolutions.  Dr.  Jacobs  there- 
fore says  correctly  in  "Lutheran  Cyclopaedia,"  under 
"Galesburg  Rule :"  "What  is  generally  known  as 
the  Galesburg  Rule  is  properly  the  Akron  Rule  of 
1872."  (p.  189).  There  were  then  and  there  are 
now  two  parties  in  the  Council.  The  one,  to  which 
belonged  the  Germans  (especially  the  New  York  Min- 
isterium  and  the  Canada  Synod)  and  largely  also 
the  Swedes,  demand  the  exclusive  interpretation  of 
the  Galesburg  Rule.  The  other  party,  to  which  the 
English  portion  very  .generally  belongs,  insists  that 
regard  must  be  had  to  the  principles  set  forth  in  points 
two  and   three   of   the   Akron   declaration,  and   that 


"•  Documentary    History,    p.    219.      See    also    Lutheran    Cyclopaedia, 
p.   189. 


224  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  §    l8,* 

Stress  must  be  laid  on  the  fact  that  these  were  not 
rescinded  by  the  Galesburg  Rule.  "° 

2.  Concerning  the  matter  of  "Secret  Societies," 
the  General  Council  set  forth  the  following  declara- 
tion, in  1868:  "Any  and  all  societies  for  moral  and 
religious  ends  which  do  not  rest  on  the  supreme 
authority  of  God's  Holy  Word,  as  contained  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  —  which  do  not  recognize 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  true  God  and  the  only 
Mediator  between  God  and  man  —  which  teach  doc- 
trines or  have  usages  or  forms  of  worship  condemned 
in  God's  Word  and  in  the  Confessions  of  His  Church 
—  which  assume  to  themselves  what  God  has  given  to 
His  Church  and  its  Ministers  —  which  require  unde- 
fined obligations  to  be  assumed  by  oath,  are  unchris- 
tian, and  we  solemnly  warn  our  members  and  min- 
isters against  all  fellowship  with  or  connivance  at 
associations  which  have  this  character."  And  fur- 
ther :  "All  connection  with  infidel  and  immoral  as- 
sociations we  consider  as  requiring  the  exercise  of 
prompt  and  decisive  discipline,  and  after  faithful  and 
patient  admonition  and  teaching  from  God's  Word,  the 
cutting  off  the  persistent  and  obstinate  offender  from 
communion  of  the  Church  until  he  abandons  them  and 
shows  a  true  repentance."  "^ 

3.  Chiliasm.  Dr.  J.  A.  Seiss,  chairman  of  the 
delegation    of   the    Ministerium   of    Pennsylvania    in 


^**  The  most  thorough  treatment  of  this  whole  matter,  in  its  his- 
torical and  dogmatic  bearings,  is  the  work  of  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth,  and 
was  presented  at  the  First  Free  Lutheran  Diet  in  America,  held  at 
Pittsburg,  Pa.,  1877,  and  participated  in  by  large  numbers  of  members 
of  the  General  Council  and  General  Synod.  Reprinted  in  Proceedings 
of  the  "First   Free   Lutheran  Diet  in   America,"  pp.   27-69. 

***  These  are  sections  2  and  3  of  the  declaration  on  this  subject. 
See   Documentary   History,   p.  208. 


§    l8,^  ITS    THARACTER.  225 

1866,  when  the  synod  left  the  General  Synod,  promi- 
nent author  and  minister,  was  one  of  the  leaders  in 
the  organization  of  the  General  Council.  He  was 
deeply  interested  in  questions  on  the  subject  of  the 
last  things  and  was  the  author  of  a  book  entitled : 
"The  Last  Times."  He  modified  his  views  from  tirae 
to  time ;  but  he  was  generally  regarded  as  a  chiliast. 
and  this  probably  accounted  for  the  fact  that  the 
Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  at  the  first  regular  convention 
of  the  General  Council,  demanded,  among  other  things, 
a  declaration  of  the  Council  as  to  the  position  it  occu- 
pied regarding  Chiliasm  (§  17,  3).  In  the  year  1868,  at 
the  Pittsburg  convention,  the  Council  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing declaration  on  this  subject : 

"1.  This  Council  holds  firmly  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 
coming  and  the  associated  Articles  touching  the  Last 
Things,  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  General  Creeds  and  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  that  sense  of  them  which  has 
been  undisputed  among  all  who  have  made  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  unreserved  acceptance  of  the  Lutheran  faith. 

"2.  The  General  Council  has  neither  had,  nor  would 
consent  to  have,  fellowship  with  any  Synod  which  tolerates 
the  'Jewish  opinions'  or  'Chiliastic  opinions'  condemned  in 
the  XVn.  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

"3.  The  points  on  which  our  Confession  has  not  been 
explicit,  or  on  which  its  testimony  is  not  at  present  inter- 
preted in  precisely  the  same  way  by  persons  equally  intelli- 
gent and  honest,  and  equally  unreserved  and  worthy  of 
belief  in  the  profession  of  adherence  to  the  Confession, 
should  continue  to  be  the  subject  of  calm,  thorough,  scrip- 
tural, and  prayerful  investigation,  until  we  shall  see  per- 
fectly eye  to  eye  both  as  regards  the  teaching  of  God's 
Word  and  the  testimony  of  our  Church.'"" 


"^  See  German  Minutes,  p.  i6.  Documentary  History,  p.  207.  The 
reading  of  this  report  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Con:mittee,  Dr.  C.  P. 
Krauth,    was    followed    by    a    minority    report,    signed    by    J.    Bading,    R. 

15 


226  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  §    l8,* 

4.  With  respect  to  language  the  General  Council 
is  a  polyglot  body.  At  the  time  of  its  organization 
the  German  and  Swedish  languages  largely  prevailed. 
But  a  large  number  especially  of  German  synods 
(Wisconsin,  Illinois,  Minnesota,  Michigan)  gradually 
withdrew.  Nevertheless,  the  German  element  is  still 
strong  in  the  General  Council  (especially  through 
the  New  York  Ministerium,  which,  on  account  of  the 
withdrawal  of  the  English  element  and  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  new  district  synod  under  the  title  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York  and  New  England,  has  become 
again  an  entirely  German  body;  through  the  Mani- 
toba Synod  and  the  Synod  of  Canada).  The  Augus- 
tana  Synod  is  a  large  and  influential  synod  in  the 
Council.  The  Council  also  labors  among  the  Slav 
nationalities  in  this  country.  But  the  use  of  the 
English  language  has  constantly  been  gaining  ground, 
because  from  the  beginning  the  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  the  Pittsburgh  Synod  exercised  no  small 
influence  in  Ohio  and  Indiana,  especially  since  the 
most  influential  men  (Krauth,  Schaefifer,  Krotel,  Seiss, 
Mann,  Schmucker,  Roth,  and  others)  wrote  in  Eng- 
lish. It  has  in  "The  Lutheran"  (for  many  years 
edited  by  Dr.  G.  F.  Krotel,  now  by  Dr.  G.  W.  Sandt) 
a  good  English  organ,  which  is  read  by  many  out- 


Adelberg,  and  S.  Klingman,  in  which  they  say:  "We  reject  each  and 
every  form  of  Chiliasm,  as  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Con- 
fessions." Cf.  German  Minutes,  p.  30;  English  Minutes,  p.  25.  Pastor 
Bading  was  a  delegate  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  Pastor  Adelberg  of  the 
New  York  Ministerium,  and  Pastor  Klingmann  of  the  Michigan  Synod. 
It  should  be  stated,  in  this  connection,  that  Pastor  J.  Grosse,  in  his 
book,  "Unterscheidungslehren,"  etc.,  in  his  reference  to  the  character- 
istics of  the  General  Council,  quotes  numerous  passages  from  the  above- 
named  book  of  Dr.  Seiss,  but  fails  altogether  to  refer  to  the  declar- 
ations of  the  General  Council  itself.  Since  the  death  of  Dr.  Seiss 
nothing  at  all  is  heard  of  Chiliasm   in   the   General  Council. 


§    l8.^  ITS    CHAKAtTKR.  227 

side  of  the  boundaries  ut'  tlic  Council ;  also  a  well 
edited  German  organ  in  "Der  Deutsche  Lutheraner" 
(of  which  Dr.  G.  C.  Berkemeier  is  editor-in-chief). 
Concerning  periodicals  published  by  the  Augustana 
Synod,  see  §  19,  5.  In  the  "Lutheran  Church  Review" 
(edited  by  Dr.  Theodore  E.  Schmauk)  the  General 
Council  has  an  excellent  theological  quarterly. 

5.  With  regard  to  ecclesiastical  polity  the  Gen- 
eral Council  is  an  organization  which  permits  the 
individual  synods  a  large  freedom  in  the  regulation 
of  their  own  affairs.  But  the  organization  of  synods 
on  the  territory  of  the  Council,  which  in  the  interest 
of  the  whole  body  have  been  more  and  more  estab- 
lished as  district  synods  on  geographical  lines,  and 
which  have  been  directed  in  their  various  operations 
by  the  advice  and  help  of  the  general  body,  has  grad- 
ually given  the  General  Council  the  character  of  a 
body  with  more  or  less  centralized  powers  over  the 
individual  synods.  This  condition  of  things  has 
brought  about  the  danger  of  a  conflict,  especially  with 
the  Augustana  Synod,  which  on  account  of  linguistic 
conditions  that  prevent  all  geographical  limitations, 
has  felt  the  need  of  preserving  its  freedom  of  move- 
ment. At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Council  at 
Minneapolis,  Minn.  (1909),  this  matter  came  up  in 
connection  with  resolutions  offered  by  Dr.  E.  Norelius, 
which  were  ratified  by  the  Augustana  Synod  ;^°'  and 
two  years  later  (Lancaster,  Pa.,  1911)  the  matter  was 
so  arranged  that  the  functions  of  such  bodies  as  the 
Augustana  Synod  shall  be  free  from  all  outside  inter- 
ference.   This  declaration  was  not  intended  to  touch 


'"See   Minutes   of  Aug.    SynoJ   of   1909,   p.    197. 


228  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  §    IQ,^ 

the  relation  of  those  district  synods  whose  activities 
are  guided  by  the  more  direct  aid  on  the  part  of  the 
general  body.  At  the  same  time,  these  resolutions 
were  intended  to  facilitate  the  organic  union  of  the 
Iowa  Synod  with  the  General  Council,  without  any 
fear  that  it  might  thereby  surrender  its  own  identity. 


§  19.     Present  Status. 

The  General  Council  embraces  the  following  four- 
teen synods:  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  Minis- 
terium  of  New  York,  Pittsburgh  Synod,  Texas  Synod 
(admitted  again,  1915),  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  Augus- 
tana  Synod,  Synod  of  Canada,  Chicago  Synod,  Eng- 
lish Synod  of  the  Northwest,  Manitoba  Synod,  Pacific 
Synod,  Synod  of  New  York  and  New  England,  Nova 
Scotia  Synod,  and  Synod  of  Central  Canada. 

1.  The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  also  called 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  the  "Mother  Synod,"  has  been 
mentioned  frequently  (§§  4:5,  8;  7:1,  2,  3;  8:2,; 
9:2,  3;  19:3;  11:1a;  16:1),  so  that  little  more  need 
be  said  in  this  connection.  It  is,  except  the  Augustana 
Synod,  the  largest  of  the  synods  connected  with  the 
Council.  According  to  the  statistics  of  1915,  it  num- 
bers 406  ministers,  575  congregations,  and  159,137 
communicants.  It  is  divided  into  ten  Conference  dis- 
tricts, one  of  which  is  the  Mission  Conference  in  In- 
dia. Only  one  of  these  Conferences  is  entirely  Ger- 
man. The  Synod  maintains  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary at  Mt.  Airy,  Philadelphia,  and  Muhlenberg  Col- 
lege, Allentown,  Pa. 

2.  Ministerium  of  New  York  has  also  been  so 
frequently  mentioned   (§§  5:1;    8:3;    9:2,  3;    11:1a; 


§    19."  PRESENT    STATUS.  229 

17:1  that  little  more  need  be  said  here.  This  synod 
has  in  many  respects  had  a  varied  history.  Under 
the  long  presidency  of  Dr.  Quitmann  it  was  influenced 
by  Rationalism.  Later,  under  the  influence  of  Dr. 
Hazelius,  the  President  of  Ilartwick  Seminary,  the 
synod  returned  to  the  faith ;  yet  because  even  he, 
who  had  come  from  the  Moravians,  failed  to  compre- 
hend the  teachings  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  Church, 
the  tendency  of  the  synod  was  towards  Methodistic 
practices,  which  flourished  among  all  denominations 
in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  re- 
action against  this  tendency  led  the  synod,  in  the  sixth 
decade,  upon  a  firm  Lutheran  basts.  In  1859  the  synod 
adopted  the  confessional  basis  which  the  General 
Synod,  in  I869,  in  Washington,  D.  C.  (§  11,  1  b;,  made 
its  own.  Following  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
it  withdrew  from  the  General  Synod  in  1867,  and 
since  it  then  adopted  the  confessional  basis  of  the 
General  Council  (§17,  2),  it  placed  itself  upon  the 
collective  writings  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  Equally 
varied  has  been  the  history  of  the  New  York  Minis- 
terium with  regard  to  language.  At  the  time  of  its 
organization  it  was  a  German  body,  and  remained  so 
for  twenty-five  years.  For  fifty  years  afterwards  the 
synodical  business  was  transacted  in  the  English  Izui- 
guage.  After  1867  it  again  became  a  German  body, 
for  in  that  year  the  English-speaking  members  with- 
drew from  it  (§  10,  3).  But  thanks  to  large  immi- 
gration, many  new  German  congregations  were  organ- 
ized  during  the  years  immediately  following  this 
period.  But  soon  English  congregations  again  began 
to  be  organized,  especially  after  1888,  which  led 
finally   to   the    formation   of  a  strong   English   Con- 


230  THE   GENERAL   COUNCIL.  §    IQ,^ 

ference.  In  1902  the  English  members  separated 
peaceably  from  the  German,  and  organized  the  "Synod 
of  New  York  and  New  England,"  and  thus  the  New 
York   Ministerium   again   became   a  purely   German 

body.  Since  that  time,  however,  the  English  language 
has  again  entered  congregations,  so  that  the  num- 
ber of  congregations  using  both  languages  is  today 
quite  large.  Besides  the  synod  just  mentioned, 
other  synods  have  come  into  existence  from  this 
body:  Hartwick  Synod,  the  English  Synod  of  New 
York,  and  the  small  Synod  of  New  Jersey,  which  were 
later  combined,  and  under  the  title  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey  united  with  the  General 
Synod  (§  10:3  d).  When  the  New  York  Ministerium 
withdrew  from  the  General  Synod,  in  1867,  Hartwick 
Seminary  (§§  6:1 ;  12:1)  remained  in  the  possession  of 
the  seceding  minority  of  English  members.  Since 
1885,  the  synod  has  in  Wagner  College,  Rochester, 
N.  Y.  (§  201  b,  3),  a  classical  school,  most  of  whose 
graduates  receive  their  theological  training  in  the 
Seminary  at  Mt.  Airy;  others  in  the  Seminary  at 
Waterloo,  Ontario.  The  Ministerium  supports  a 
German  professor  in  the  Mt.  Airy  Seminary. 

3.  The  Pittsburgh  Synod  (§§  7:4;  10  :B,  d;  17:1, 
3)  was  organized  in  1845  by  eight  ministers,  who 
were  pastors  of  forty  congregations.  It  entered  the 
General  Synod  in  1853.  In  the  years  of  the  crisis  at 
Fort  Wayne,  Indiana,  1866,  the  Pittsburgh  Synod 
withdrew,  and  participated  in  the  organization  of  the 
General  Council,  in  consequence  of  which  ten  pastors 
severed  their  connection  with  it.  Its  present  numer- 
ical strength  (1915)  is  152  ministers,  196  congrega- 
tions,   and    26,872    communicants.     This    synod,    on 


§    19.*  PRESENT    STATUS.  23 1 

account  of  its  activity  in  mission  work,  which  from 
the  beginning  it  carried  on  very  extensively,  has  been 
generally  designated  as  "Missionary  Synod."  It  sent 
missionaries  to  Canada,  Texas  and  Minnesota,  and  laid 
the  fouundation  for  the  synods  that  have  since  been 
organized  in  these  States.  The  leading  spirit  of  this 
body  was  for  many  years  Dr.  W.  A.  Paissavant  (see 
Biographical  Notes).  With  the  name  of  this  man 
are  connected  a  number  of  institutions  of  mercy,  which 
to-day  are  an  ornament  to  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
this  country  —  the  Orphans'  Home  at  Rochester,  Pa., 
the  Deaconess  Home  and  Hospital  at  Milwaukee,  Wis., 
and  a  Hospital  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  etc.  The  classical 
school  of  this  synod  is  Thiel  College,  Greenville,  Pa. 

4.  The  District  Synod  of  Ohio,  or,  according  to  its 
earlier  title,  "English  Evangelical  Lutheran  District 
Synod  of  Ohio  and  other  States,"  was  organized  in 
1857.  Its  entrance  into  the  General  Council  became 
the  cause  of  the  position  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 
against  the  Council,  which  is  still  felt.  Dr.  G.  W. 
Mechling,  an  old  member  of  the  synod,  writes : 
"Without  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Joint  Synod 
of  Ohio,  this  synod  was  represented  at  the  Reading 
convention.  But  at  the  organization  of  the  General 
Council  the  representative  of  the  Joint  Synod 
agitated  the  matter  of  the  well  known  Four  Points, 
with  the  result  that  Ohio  failed  to  unite  with  the 
Council.  Two  members  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 
protested  against  the  reception  of  the  English  District 
Synod  into  the  Council.  But  this  protest  was  tigain 
withdrawn,  and  the  District  Synod  became  an  integral 
part  of  the  General  Council,  without,  however,  desir- 
ing to  sever  its  connection  with  the  Joint  Synod  of 


232  THE  GENERAL  COUNCIL.  §    IQ,^'" 

Ohio.  The  Joint  Synod  ended  this  anomalous  con- 
dition by  a  resolution  that  the  District  Synod  could  no 
longer  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  that  Synod." 
According  to  the  statistics  of  1915,  the  synod  numbers 
56  ministers,  89  congregations  and  13,939  communi- 
cants. This  synod  would  be  stronger  numerically,  but 
it  has  from  time  to  time  dismissed  a  considerable 
number  of  its  larger  congregations  to  two  of  its 
sister  synods  (Pittsburgh  and  Indiana,  now  Chicago 
Synod),  without  thereby  receiving  any  increase  from 
other  sources.  To  the  Pittsburgh  Synod  it  dismissed 
large  congregations  in  Westmoreland  County,  Pa. 
The  hope  was  entertained  that  in  return  congrega- 
tions of  the  Pittsburgh  Synod  in  Ohio  would  connect 
themselves  with  the  Ohio  Synod,  but  this  hope  was 
not  realized.  The  congregations  in  Indiana  were 
dismissed  to  the  Chicago  Synod  without  receiving  any 
benefits  in  return.  This  explains  the  present  numer- 
ical condition  of  the  synod. 

5.  The  Augustana  Synod  was  organized  by 
Swedes  and  Norwegians  at  Clinton,  Wisconsin,  in 
1860. 

a.  The  early  history  of  this  synod  contains  many 
points  of  interest.  In  1850,  shortly  after  his  arrival 
from  Sweden  in  company  with  a  band  of  his  country- 
men, Pastor  L.  P.  Esbjom  organized  the  Swedish 
Lutheran  congregation  at  Andover,  Illinois,  and  in 
the  same  year  also  the  congregation  at  GsJesburg, 
Illinois,  together  with  other  congregations,  which  he 
served  as  pastor.  He  entered  into  relations  with 
some  Norwegians,  and  with  these  he  participated  in 
the  formation  of  the  Northern  Illinois  Synod  in  1851, 
which  united  with  the  General  Synod  in  1853.     Pastor 


§    19/''  PRESENT    STATUS.  233 

T.  N.  Hasselquist  arrived  from  Sweden  in  1852,  and 
took  charge  of  the  congregation  at  Galesburg,  and  in 
the  following  year  Pastor  E.  Carbson  arrived,  and 
became  pastor  of  a  Swedish  congregation  in  Chicago; 
both  these  were  men  who,  with  Esbjorn,  were  des- 
tined to  exercise  a  far-reaching  influence.  The 
stream  of  Scandinavian  immigration  was  extraor- 
dinarily strong  in  those  years,  especially  to  Minnesota, 
where  to-day  the  Swedes  constitute  one-sixth  of  the 
population.  The  labors  of  these  men  grew  rapidly, 
and  the  Scandinavians  soon  formed  three  conferences : 
Chicago,  Mississippi  and  Minnesota.  In  the  year 
1857  a  Scandinavian  professorship  was  founded  in 
the  Illinois  State  University,  at  Springfield,  IlL,  then 
under  the  control  of  the  Northern  Illinois  Synod,  the 
incumbent  of  which  was  Pastor  Esbjorn.  But  already 
in  1860,  during  the  confusion  within  the  General 
Synod  (§  10,  2),  Esbjorn  severed  his  connection  with 
the  institution,  and  took  his  students  wMth  him,  and  on 
June  5th  of  the  same  year  the  Scandinavian  Conference 
organized  the  "Scandinavian  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Augustana  Synod  of  North  America,"  at  Clinton,  Wis- 
consin, with  Hasselquist  as  its  first  president,  and 
with  Esbjorn  as  professor  in  the  Seminary  in  Chicago, 
which  was  then  managed  as  an  independent  institution, 
b.  The  development  of  the  Augustana  Synod  has 
been  remarkable.  In  the  year  of  its  organization  it 
numbered  27  ministers,  49  congregations,  and  4,967 
communicants,  consisting  of  Swedes  and  Norwegians ; 
and  although  ten  years  later  (1870)  the  Norwegians 
withdrew,  in  order  to  organize  a  synod  of  their  own 
(§  33),  and  although  it  was  forced  to  pass  through  a 
bitter    conflict,    from    1872-1875,    with    the    Walden- 


234  THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    ig,^'" 

stroemian  tendency,  ^®^  this  synod  now  (1915)  num- 
bers 692  ministers,  1,204  congregations,  and  184,056 
communicants.  In  1894  this  synod  was  reorganized 
as  a  delegate  body ;  and  its  eight  conferences  were 
given  larger  powers,  without,  however,  giving  the  con- 
ferences authority  to  ordain  ministers. 

c.  Its  institutions  are  numerous,  at  the  head  of 
which  is  Augustana  College  and  Seminary  at  Rock 
Island,  Illinois.  The  Seminary  in  Chicago,  already 
mentioned,  was  removed  to  Paxton,  111.,  in  1863,  and 
when  Esbjorn  returned  to  Sweden,  Hasselquist  be- 
came the  head  of  the  institution,  a  position  he  held 
until  the  end  of  his  life  (1891).  The  Seminary  and 
College  were  removed  to  Rock  Island  in  1865,  where 
they  now  exist  as  one  of  the  most  efficient  institutions 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country.  The  theolog- 
ical faculty  at  present  (1916)  consists  of  the  fol- 
lowing: Rev.  Gustav  Andreen,  Ph.  D.,  R.  N.  O.,  K.  V. 
O.,  President  —  Conrad  Emil  Lindberg,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
R.  N.  O.  —  Rev.  Carl  August  Blomgren,  Ph.  D.  —  Rev. 
Carl  Johannes  Soedergren,  A.  M.,  Rev.  Adolf  Hult,  B. 
D.  Bethany  College,  Lindsborg,  Kansas,  was  founded 
by  Dr.  C.  A.  Swensson  in  1881.  Gustavus  Adolphus 
College,  under  the  management  of  the  Minnesota  Con- 
ference, was  founded  in  1862,  at  Red  Wing,  Minn.  At 
first   it  was   known   as   the   "Minnesota   Elementary 


1**  Waldenstrom,  head-master  of  the  Latin  School  at  Gefle,  Sweden, 
violently  attacked  the  churchly  doctrines  of  the  atonement  and  justi- 
fication, especially  Christ's  vicarious  death,  and  further  ignored  the 
ministerial  call,  inasmuch  as  he  permitted  laymen  to  administer  the 
sacraments.  While  on  a  visit  to  America,  as  in  Sweden,  he  created 
a  great  sensation  through  his  writings  and  addresses,  so  much  so 
that  the  Congregationalists,  who  especially  fraternized  with  him,  gave 
him  the  title  of  Doctor  of  Divinity.  His  followers  are  called  "MissioH 
Friends,"  but   they  are  not  increasing  rapidly  in  numbers. 


§    KJ,'""  PRESENT    STATUS.  235 

School;"  in  1863  it  was  removed  to  Union,  Minn.,  and 
called  "Ansgar  Academy;"  finally,  in  1876,  it  was  re- 
moved to  St.  Peter,  Minn.,  and  received  its  present 
name.  Luther  Academy,  Wahoo,  Nebraska,  founded 
in  1883,  beloiig-s  to  the  Nebraska  Conference.  Besides 
these,  the  Augustana  Synod  supports  five  additional 
Academies,  twelve  Orphans*  Homes,  and  five  Hos- 
pitals, in  connection  with  which  the  Deaconess 
Motherhouse,  Omaha,  Neb.,  deserves  special  mention. 

BiographicsJ  Notes. 

Prof.  Lars  Paul  Esbjorn,  the  venerable  pioneer  and 
pastor  of  the  Augustana  Synod,  was  born  in  the  Delsboro 
congregation,  Helsingland  Province,  Sweden,  October  16, 
1808.  He  was  educated  in  the  schools  at  Hudiksvall  and 
Gefle,  studied  theology  at  Upsala,  and  was  ordained  at  that 
place  in  1832.  After  his  ordination  he  served  as  assistant 
pastor  at  Ostra  Wahla,  Ostattsfors  and  Hille,  in  the  arch- 
diocese of  Upsala.  In  his  early  years  he  took  an  active 
part  in  the  temperance  agitation  of  northern  Sweden.  Sup- 
ported l)y  the  Swedish  Missionary  Society  of  Stockholm,  he 
came  to  America  in  1849,  and  at  once  began  his  earnest  and 
active  labors  among  the  newly  arrived  immigrants  at  An- 
dover,  Henry  County,  Illinois.  He  organized  the  Swedish 
Lutheran  congregations  at  Andover  and  Moline  (1850), 
Galcsburg  (1851),  and  Princeton  (1856).  Then  followed  his 
activity  as  theological  professor  at  Springfield,  111.,  as 
already  stated.  After  his  withdrawal  from  this  institution, 
he  served  the  Augustana  Synod  as  theological  professor 
until  1863,  when  he  returned  to  Sweden,  where  he  labored 
as  pastor  at  Ostra  Wahla,  and  where  he  died,  July  2,  1870. 

Prof.  Tuve  Niltson  Hasselquist,  D.  D.  (Muhlenberg  Col- 
lege, 1871),  patriarch  of  the  Augustana  Synod,  was  born 
March  2,  1816,  at  Onsby,  Diocese  of  Lund,  Sweden.  He  was 
educated  at  Lund  and  ordained  in  1839.  He  served  a  num- 
ber of  congregations  in  Sweden,  and  was  known  as  an 
earnest    evangelical   preacher.     In    1852   he    received   a   call 


236  THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    I9," 

from  the  recently  organized  Swedish  Lutheran  congrega- 
tion at  Galesburg,  111.,  which  he  accepted  and  became  its 
pastor  in  the  same  year.  Under  many  self-denials,  but  with 
great  zeal  he  served  this  congregation  for  eleven  years.  In 
addition,  he  made  many  missionary  journeys  to  numerous 
places.  In  1855  he  began  the  publication  of  "Hemlandet," 
the  first  Swedish  political  paper  in  America,  and  also 
"Ratta  Hemlandet,"  the  first  Swedish  church  paper  in  this 
country,  which  in  1869,  under  the  title  "Augustana,"  became 
the  official  organ  of  the  Augustana  Synod.  He  continued 
as  editor  of  this  paper  until  his  death.  He  prepared  an 
excellent  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  He 
became  President  of  Augustana  College,  and  at  the  same 
time  was  a  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  where 
in  the  later  years  of  his  life  he  taught  Practical  Theology. 
In  addition  to  his  activity  as  a  teacher,  he  was  pastor  of 
the  Swedish  Lutheran  congregation,  first  at  Paxton,  and 
afterwards  at  Rock  Island,  in  which  capacity  he  served 
until  his  death,  February  4,  1891.  Dr.  Hasselquist  was  a 
model  of  deep  personal  piety  and  had  an  earnest  zeal  for 
Christianity  and  for  his  Church.  As  a  theologian  he  be- 
longed to  the  conservative  and  Biblical  school  of  Bengel. 
He  is  properly  regarded  as  the  most  distinguished  preacher 
and  Bible  expositor  which   the  Augustana  Synod  has  had. 

6.  The  Canada  Synod  was  until  recently  an  en- 
tirely German  Synod,  although  in  later  years  several 
city  congregations  have  introduced  the  English 
language.  Although  there  were  isolated  German  con- 
gregations in  Canada  —  as  early  as  1789  a  German 
Lutheran  Church  was  consecrated  at  Williamsburg  — 
yet  the  organization  of  a  synod  came  only  as  a 
result  of  the  missionary  activity  of  the  Pittsburgh 
Synod  (§  19:3),  which  first  sent  to  Canada  Pastor 
G.  Beissler,  and  afterwards,  as  traveling  missionary, 
Pastor  C  F.  DiehL  In  1859  a  Conference  of  the 
Pittsburgh  Synod  was  formed  in  Canada,  and  in  1861 


§  19/  PRESENT  STATUS.  237 

this  Conference  was  organized  as  the  "Evangelical 
Lutheran  Synod  of  Canada."  The  Synod's  pastors 
have  largely  been  supplied  by  Kropp  Seminary,  Ger- 
many (§  20)  ;  yet  since  the  year  1911  this  source  of 
supply  has  been  largely  withdrawn.  In  the  latter  year 
the  synod  founded  its  own  Theological  Seminary  at 
Waterloo,  which  it  supports  in  conjunction  with  the 
"Synod  of  Central  Canada."  The  Canada  Synod 
numbers  43  ministers,  74  congregations,  and  14,050 
communicants. 

7.  The  Chicago  Synod  is  the  present  title  of  a 
small  synod,  which  in  1871  was  organized  as  the 
Indiana  Synod.  Several  pastors  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  (§  5:5),  stationed  in  Indiana,  as  early  as  1835 
organized  a  Synod  of  Indiana ;  but  in  consequence  of 
doctrinal  diflficulties  and  personal  differences  it  ceased 
to  exist  in  1859,  and  was  reorganized  as  "Union 
Synod,"  with  the  hope  that  all  the  Lutherans  in  the 
State  could  be  led  to  unite  Avith  it.  This  hope  was 
never  realized.  When  the  General  Council  was  organ- 
ized the  synod  applied  for  admission  to  this  body ; 
but  doctrinal  and  practical  difficulties  were  in  the 
way.  Fearing  that  other  congregations  of  the 
Council,  which  until  then  had  belonged  to  the  English 
District  Synod  of  Ohio  (see  above),  might  unite 
with  the  congregations  of  the  Union  Synod,  this 
synod  was  disbanded  in  1871,  and  in  the  same  year 
the  earlier  "Indiana  Synod**  was  reorganized.  In 
later  )ears  the  name  of  the  synod  was  changed  to 
"Chicago  Synod.**  The  synod  numbers  46  ministers, 
55  congregations  and  8,284  communicants. 

8.  The  English  Synod  of  the  Northwest  was 
organized  September  23,  1891,  at  St.  Paul,  Minnesota. 


238  THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    I9,* 

At  strategical  points  in  the  Northwest  the  General 
Council  had  estabHshed  missions  —  in  Minnesota, 
Wisconsin,  Dakota,  Utah  and  Washington.  This 
synod  was  organized  in  order  to  establish  a  common 
center  for  these  missions.  The  synod's  active  oper- 
ations caused  considerable  offense  in  the  Augustana 
Synod,  especially  in  the  Minnesota  Conference,  since 
the  Augustana  Synod  considered  that  it  could  take 
care  of  its  congregations  desiring  English,  while  the 
Synod  of  the  Northwest  regarded  itself  specially  called 
to  engage  in  work  among  English-speaking  Lutherans. 
In  later  years  this  matter  has  been  satisfactorily 
adjusted,  and  all  differences  have  been  laid  aside. 
The  synod  numbers  40  ministers,  46  congregations, 
and  10,921  communicants.  One  of  the  chief  aims  of 
the  two  last  named  synods  is  the  maintenance  and 
support  of  the  Chicago  Seminary,  from  which  it 
draws  its  ministerial  supplies. 

9.  The  Manitoba  Synod  was  organized  in  1897 
by  the  pastors  and  congregations  of  the  German 
Mission  Board  of  the  General  Council,  established  in 
the  Canadian  Northwest,  and  in  the  same  year  it  was 
admitted  into  the  Council.  It  numbers  31  ministers, 
62  congregations  and  numerous  preaching  stations, 
and  4,981  communicants.  Since  1912  the  synod  main- 
tains a  college  at  Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan,  which  is 
particularly  engaged  in  preparing  young  men  for  the 
study  of  theology. 

10.  The  Pacific  Synod  was  organized  in  1901,  and 
numbers  21  ministers,  23  congregations,  and  1,906 
communicants,  scattered  over  the  west  coast.  The 
synod  is  bi-lingual,  and  is  divided  into  a  German  and 
an  English  Conference.     In  the  year  1910  it  founded 


5j     I9,'"'*  PRESENT    STATUS.  239 

a  Theological  Seminary  at  Portland,  Oregon,  which 
has  since  been  removed  to  Seattle,  Washington. 

11.  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  New  Englauid  is 
the  title  of  the  new  synod  which  was  organized  by 
former  members  of  the  New  York  Ministerium  at 
Utica,  N.  Y.,  September  24,  1902  (cf.  §  19,  2).  Al- 
though in  the  year  1909  a  number  of  pastors  and 
congregations  were  dismissed  for  the  purpose  of 
uniting  with  the  newly  organized  "Synod  of  Central 
Canada"  (cf.  §  19,  13),  the  synod  has  enjoyed  an  un- 
usually rapid  growth.  It  numbers  at  present  62 
ministers,  55  congregations,  and  14,479  communicants. 

12.  Nova  Scotia  Synod.  At  its  75th  annual  con- 
vention, July  3,  1903,  the  Nova  Scotia  Conference  of 
the  Pittsburgh  Synod  was  organized  as  the  Nova 
Scotia  Synod,  with  6  ministers,  24  congregations, 
and  2,439  communicants.  Unfavorable  conditions 
have  prevented  the  synod  from  enjoying  a  rapid 
growth.  The  synod  now  numbers  7  ministers,  28 
congregations,  and  2.918  communicants. 

13.  The  Synod  of  Central  Canada,  the  youngest  in 
the  Council,  is  the  result  of  English  missionary 
activities  in  Canada,  which  the  Board  of  English 
Missions  of  the  General  Council  began  in  the  year 
1904.  The  synod  was  organized  in  1909,  in  Toronto, 
and  now  numbers  9  ministers,  16  congregations,  and 
1,781  communicants.  It  supports,  in  conjunction  with 
the  German  Canada  Synod  (§  19:6),  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Waterloo.  Ontario. 

14.  The  First  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of 
Texas  was  organized  November  8,  1851,  became  a 
member  of  the  General  Council  in  1868;  in  1895  it 
withdrew  in  order  to  become  a  district  of  the  Iowa 


240  THE   GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20/'' 

Synod,  but  in  1915  it  re-entered  the  Council.  It  num- 
bers 8  ministers,  14  congregations,  and  3,000  com- 
municants. 


§  20.     Institutions  and  Missions.* 

1.     Theological  Seminaries. 

a.  The  Philadelphia  Seminary,  at  Mt.  Airy, 
Philadelphia  (property  of  the  Ministerium  of  Penn- 
sylvania), a  pium  desiderium  of  Muhlenberg,  was 
opened  in  1864,  in  the  rooms  of  the  Publication  House, 
Philadelphia,  and  later  occupied  its  own  building  on 
Franklin  street.  In  1889  it  was  removed  to  Mt.  Airy. 
The  first  professors  were  Doctors  C.  F.  Schaeffer, 
Mann,  Krauth,  C.  W.  SchaefJer,  and  Krotel.  Dr. 
Spaeth  became  a  member  of  the  faculty  in  1873,  and 
Dr.  Jacobs  in  1883.  For  a  short  time  (1892-1896)  the 
famous  Assyriologist,  Dr.  Hilprecht,  was  connected 
with  the  institution.  Dr.  G.  F.  Spieker  was  professor 
of  Church  History,  1894-1913.  The  present  faculty 
consists  of  the  Dean,  Dr.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  and  Doc- 
tors J.  Fry,  H.  Offermann,  T.  E.  Schmauk,  L.  D. 
Reed,  C.  M.  Jacobs,  and  C.  T.  Benze.  About  850 
pastors  have  gone  forth  from  this  seminary.  In  one 
year  it  had  92  students.  The  institution  possesses  a 
valuable  property,  with  commodious  buildings,  en- 
dowment amounting  to  nearly  $350,000,  and  one  of 
the  most  valuable  libraries  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
America,  housed  in  a  magnificent  building,  erected  in 
memory  of  Dr.  Krauth.  The  President  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  is  Dr.  Schmauk. 


*  This    section    has   been    revised   on    the   basis   of   the    first   edition 
with  great   care  by   Prof.   Dr.   H.   Offermann. 


§    ^O,""'  INSTITUTION'S    AND    MISSIONS.  24I 

b.  The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Seminary  at  May- 
wood,  Illinois,  founded  througli  the  activity  of  Dr. 
Passavant,  was  opened  in  1891.  In  the  year  1910  it 
was  removed  from  Lake  View,  Chicago,  to  Maywood, 
a  suburb  of  the  city.  Largely  supported  by  the 
Chicago  Synod  and  the  English  Synod  of  the  North- 
west (see  above),  its  aim  is  to  supply  this  territory 
with  English  Lutheran  pastors.  Nevertlieless,  among 
its  students  are  those  who  prepare  for  the  ministry 
in  other  Lutheran  synods.  About  250  pastors  have 
obtained  their  theological  training  here.  Dr.  R.  F. 
Weidner.  Dr.  Passavant's  choice  for  this  position, 
remained  at  the  head  of  the  institution  until  his 
death  (1915).  Besides  the  present  head  of  the  insti- 
tution. Dr.  E.  F.  Krauss,  the  members  of  the  faculty 
are  Doctors  G.  F.  Gerberding.  A.  Ramsay,  and 
T.  Stump. 

c.  The  Augustana  Seminary  of  the  Swedes  at 
Rock  Island  (cf.  above)  was  founded  in  Chicago  in 
1860,  and  removed  to  Rock  Island  in  1875.  The  Presi- 
dent is  Dr.  G.  A.  Andreen.  It  has  trained  more  than 
700  ministers. 

d.  The  Theological  Seminary  at  Waterloo,  Canada, 
is  the  }oungest  of  the  Council's  theological  institu- 
tions. It  was  opened  in  1911,  and  is  supported  by  the 
two  Canada  synods,  the  German  and  English,  and 
is  intended  to  supply  ministers  for  service  on  the 
territory  of  these  bodies.  Besides  the  two  regular 
Professors,  C.  Linke  and  P.  A.  Laury,  D.  D.,  the 
kitter  of  whom  is  the  Director,  a  inimber  of  neigh- 
boring pastors  render  assistance  as  teachers. 


16 


242  THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20,''''" 

2.     Classical    Institutions. 

a.  Muhlenberg  College,  Allentown,  Pa.  (belonging 
to  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium),  was  founded  in 
1867.  It  grew  out  of  the  "Allentown  Seminary," 
which  has  existed  since  the  year  1848.  Its  first 
President  was  Dr.  F,  A.  Muhlenberg,  vv^ho,  after  an 
administration  of  ten  years,  was  followed  by  Doctors 
Sadler  and  Seip.  Under  the  present  President,  Dr. 
John  A.  W.  Haas,  who  began  his  labors  in  1904,  the 
college  has  made  most  gratifying  progress. 

b.  Wagner  College,  Rochester,  N.  Y.  (founded  in 
1883  by  the  Rev.  Alexander  Richter,  as  a  Pro- 
Seminary  after  the  model  of  a  German  gymnasium, 
with  special  reference  to  American  conditions),  is 
carried  on  in  the  interest  of  the  New  York  Minis- 
terium. Dr.  J.  Steinhaeuser  was  its  President  for  a 
number  of  years,  who  was  succeeded  by  Dr.  J.  Nicum. 
In  the  year  1904  Pastor  H.  D.  Kraeling  became 
Director.  After  a  successful  service  of  ten  years  he 
was  succeeded  by  the  present  Director,  Pastor  J.  A. 
W.  Kirsch. 

c.  Thiel  College,  Greenville,  Pa.,  is  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Pittsburgh  Synod,  and  after  small  begin- 
nings (Dr.  H.  E.  Giese  first  President),  was  finally 
established,  under  its  present  title,  in  1870.  In  the 
early  years  of  the  present  century  there  arose  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  the  synod  concerning  the  change 
of  the  location  of  the  institution,  from  Greenville  to 
some  other  place.  The  result  of  this  was  that  the 
institution  was  closed  for  four  years,  and  only  in  1907 
reopened,  under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  C.  Theodore 
Benze,  who  has  since  been  called  to  Mt.  Airy. 


§    20,"  INSTITUTIONS  AND  MISSIONS.  243 

d.     Concerning     the     colleger      of     the      Swedes 

(Bethany  at  Lindsborg,  Kansas;  Gustavus  Adolphus 
at  St.  Peter,  Minn. ;  Luther  Academy  at  Wahoo,  Neb., 
and  others),  see  §  19,  5  c. 

3.     Institutions    of    Mercy  —  Inner    Mission    Institutions. 

Within   the   General   Council    18  Orphans'   Homes 

are  maintained,  which  are  partly  in  direct  connection 
with  individual  synods,  and  partly  have  the  character 
of  private  institutions.  Homes  for  the  Aged  are  con- 
nected with  a  number  of  these  institutions.  The 
most  important  institutions  of  this  kind  are  Wartburg 
Orphans'  Home  at  Mt.  Vernon,  near  New  York,  a 
widely  known  institution  for  the  training  of  orphans, 
which,  under  the  model  administration  of  its  Director 
for  many  years.  Dr.  G.  C.  Berkemeier,  has  attained 
great  prosperity ;  the  Orphans'  Home  and  Asylum  for 
the  Aged,  Philadelphia,  and  another  at  Topton,  Pa., 
both  supported  by  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  ;  the 
Orphans'  Home  at  Zelienople,  Pa. ;  St.  John's 
Orphans'  Home  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  as  also  the  Swedish 
Orphans'  Homes  at  Jamestown,  N.  Y. ;  Joliet,  111. ; 
Stanton,  la. ;  Vasa,  Minn. ;  Andover.  111. ;  Omaha,  Neb. : 
Cleburne,  Kans. ;  Avon,  Mass. ;  Stromberg,  Neb. 
Through  Dr.  Passavant,  the  General  Council  has  taken 
a  prominent  place  in  the  work  of  Deaconesses.  He 
founded  hospitals  at  Pittsburgh,  Milwaukee,  Chicago 
and  Jacksonville,  111.  For  the  churchly  direction  and 
the  future  development  of  the  female  diaconate.  Dr. 
A.  Spaeth  rendered  valuable  services.  Chiefly  through 
his  influence,  a  German-American,  a  native  of  Bremen, 
John  Diedrich  Lankenau,  established  in  1888,  in 
Philadelphia,    the    Mary    J.    Drexel    Motherhouse,    in 


244  THE   GENER.\L    COUNCIL.  §    20,^ 

memory  of  his  deceased  wife,  as  the  first  Deaconess 
Motherhouse,  the  largest  and  most  magnificent  insti- 
tution of  its  kind  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
The  first  Director  was  Pastor  A.  Cordes  (now  super- 
intendent and  city  pastor  in  Leipzig)  who,  after  three 
years'  activity,  returned  to  Germany.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Pastor  C.  Godel  (now  in  Montreux, 
Switzerland).  The  present  rector,  for  more  than 
eight  years,  is  Dr.  E.  F.  Bachmann.  In  connection 
with  the  Motherhouse  there  are  a  home  for  the 
aged,  a  children's  hospital,  and  the  Lankenau  School 
for  Girls.  The  splendidly  equipped  German  HospitaT 
in  Philadelphia  is  also  under  the  care  of  deaconesses. 
Judge  William  H.  Staake  is  President  of  the  Board 
of  Directors.  The  Augustana  Synod  has  a  Deaconess 
Motherhouse  at  Omaha,  Neb.  The  Lutheran  Emi- 
grant House  in  New  York,  whose  founder  and  director 
until  his  death  (1899)  was  Pastor  W.  Berkemeier, 
serving  it  for  twenty-five  years,  rendered  until  re- 
cently valuable  services  to  thousands  of  German 
immigrants.  A  short  time  ago  the  house  was  sold, 
but  missionary  activity  among  immigrants  is  to  be 
continued  in  the  future.  A  German  Seamen's  Home, 
whose  pastor  is  appointed  by  the  Pennsylvania  Minis- 
terium,  has  existed  for  a  number  of  years  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  is  supported  by  a  local  society,  whilst  a  sim- 
ilar undertaking,  the  German  Seaman's  Home  in  Ho- 
boken,  is  connected  with  the  German  Lutheran  Union 
for  the  care  of  seamen  in  Hannover.  The  General 
Council  has  developed  helpful  activity  in  the  sphere  of 
Inner  Mission,  in  order  to  render  aid  to  social  and 
spiritual  needs  in  the  large  cities  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia.     In  Philadelphia  city  mission  work  has 


§    JO,'  INSTITl'TIONS  AN'I)   MISSIONS.  245 

been  carried  on  for  years,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  F.  Ohl,  in  connection  with  the  Pennsylvania 
Ministerium.  The  Rev.  Dr.  F.  F.  Buermeier  labors  as 
city  missionary  in  New  York  City.  In  both  cities 
Christian  Hospices  for  young  men  are  maintained,  and 
efforts  in  various  directions  are  made  in  the  service  of 
the  Church. 

4.     Foreign   Mission   Work. 

The  history  of  the  Foreign  Mission  work  of  the 
Council  is  closely  connected  with  that  of  the  General 
Synod  (§  12:2).  In  consequence  of  the  separation  at 
Fort  Wayne  in  1866,  and  the  subsequent  organization 
of  the  General  Council,  the  General  Synod  found  it 
impossible  to  continue  the  work  in  India  to  the  same 
extent  as  it  had  been  begun.  It  decided,  therefore,  to 
transfer  a  part  of  the  territory  (Rajahmundry  and 
Samulkot  Districts)  to  the  Church  Missionary  Society 
(Episcopal)  of  England.  When  Father  Heyer,  a  re- 
turned missionary,  heard  of  the  contemplated  trans- 
fer while  on  a  visit  to  Germany,  he  returned  hastily 
to  America,  went  to  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium, 
then  in  session  at  Lancaster  (spring  of  1866),  and 
influenced  the  Ministerium,  which  was  then  engaged 
in  arranging  for  the  issuing  of  a  call  looking  to  the 
formation  of  the  General  Council,  to  take  over  these 
mission  stations  and  save  them  for  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Although  sixty-seven  years  of  age,  he  de- 
clared himself  ready  to  return  to  India  and  to  organize 
the  work.  He  went.  He  had  brought  with  him  to 
America  a  young  man  educated  for  mission  work, 
H.  C.  Schmidtf  of  Flensburg,  Schleswig,  who  followed 
him  to  Rajahmundry  in  1870.  In  the  following  year, 
after   having   completed    the    work    of    organization, 


246  THE   GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20,* 

Father  Heyer  returned  to  America.  Schmidt  re- 
mained at  the  head  of  the  mission  until  1902,  when  he 
resigned  his  position,  and  in  recent  years  died  in  India. 
Dr.  Harpster,  of  the  General  Synod,  succeeded  him. 
Despite  many  difficulties,  which  at  times  threatened 
the  welfare  of  the  mission,  the  work  has  enjoyed  a 
steady  growth.  In  1913  eleven  missionaries  were  on 
the  field,  in  addition  to  nine  Zenana  Sisters  and 
many  native  helpers.  The  number  of  Christians  were 
19,377.  The  contributions  for  Foreign  Missions  in 
the  last  biennium  amounted  to  $159,743.  In  addition 
to  the  work  among  the  Telugus,  work  was  begun  in 
Japan  in  1911,  which  the  General  Council  supports  in 
common  with  the  United  Synod  of  the  South,  al- 
though the  latter  work  is  still  in  its  incipient  stage. 
The  entire  Foreign  Mission  operations  of  the  General 
Council  are  conducted  by  a  central  board,  which  has 
its  place  of  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  and  of  which  the 
Rev.  G.  Drach  is  the  General  Secretary. 

5.     Home  Missions. 

While  all  parts  of  the  General  Council  are  in  com- 
mon engaged  in  prosecuting  Foreign  Missions,  the 
management  of  Home  Mission  work  rests  on  a  some- 
what different  basis.  Until  1888  each  synod  managed 
the  mission  work  on  its  own  territory ;  but  then 
efforts  began  to  be  made  to  centralize  the  work  to 
the  extent  that  the  Council  appointed  separate  com- 
mittees, respectively,  for  the  Enghsh,  the  German, 
and  the  Swedish  work.  The  Board  of  English  Mis- 
sions, under  the  energetic  Superintendent,  Dr.  Kunz- 
man,  has  been  exceptionally  active  and  has  been  very 
successful,  and  has  expended  large  sums  of  money 


§    2().'"  INSTITUTKiXS  AND   MISSIONS.  247 

for  the  establishment  of  mission  congregations,  espe- 
cially in  the  West  and  Northwest  (the  income  during 
the  last  biennium  amounted  to  more  than  $83,000). 
A  Church  Extension  Society,  which  has  at  its  dis- 
posal a  considerable  amount  of  money  and  which  it 
loans  to  poor  congregations  without  interest  for  the 
erection  of  churches,  is  an  essential  aid  to  this  work. 
The  Board  of  German  Missions,  the  soul  of  which  for 
many  years  was  the  extraordinarily  active  and  far- 
seeing  Pastor  F.  Wischan  {d.  1905),  entered  into  re- 
lations with  Pastor  J.  PauUen,  Kropp,  Schleswig, 
encouraged  him,  in  1882,  to  establish  a  Theological 
Seminary  for  the  preparation  of  men  for  this  work, 
and  received  from  him  many  capable  men.  The 
Council,  however,  soon  demanded  that  the  students 
coming  from  Kropp  should  spend  the  last  year  of 
their  course  in  the  Philadelphia  Seminary.  Pastor 
Paulsen  refused  to  comply  with  this  demand.  This 
led  to  a  spirited  conflict,  which  was  intensified  by 
personal  differences  between  individuals  in  the 
Council,  and  resulted,  in  1888,  in  the  action  of  the 
Council  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  continue  the 
official  connection  with  the  institution  at  Kropp,  and 
all  relations  with  it  ceased.  Pastor  Paulsen,  how- 
ever, continued  to  prepare  men  for  the  German  synods 
of  the  Council.  Despite  many  financial  difficulties,  his 
Seminary  continued  to  exist,  and  received  financial 
support  from  many  German  congregations  and 
pastors.  In  1909  the  interrupted  relations  between 
Kropp  and  the  Council  were  again  restored,  and  the 
mutual  relations  re-established  under  the  supervision 
of  a  special  commission,  of  which  the  President,  Dr. 
Schmauk.   is   the   chairman.     The   Theological    Sem- 


248  THE    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20,' 

inary  at  Kropp  receives  annually  a  definite  sum  of 
money  from  the  Council,  and  in  return  places  its 
graduates  at  the  disposal  of  the  Board  of  German 
Missions.  The  Rev.  A.  Hellwege  is  the  treasurer  of 
the  Kropp  Commission.  From  1913  to  1915  the 
Council  has  placed  an  American  professor  (the  Rev. 
Dr.  C.  T.  Benze)  at  Kropp.  The  Board  of  German 
Missions,  with  limited  means  at  its  command  (income 
for  1911-1913  amounted  to  $18,625),  has  accomplished 
much.  The  German  Manitoba  Synod,  which  was 
organized  in  1897,  and  now  (1916)  numbers  31  min- 
isters, 62  congregations,  and  4,981  communicants,  is 
one  of  the  fruits  of  its  labors.  The  monthly  paper, 
"Siloah,"  seeks  to  keep  alive  the  missionary  interest 
in  the  German  congregations.  New  York  is  the  seat 
of  the  Board.  The  Board  of  Swedish  Missions  re- 
ports to  the  Council,  but  carries  on  its  extended  mis- 
sionary operations  independently  and  apparently  with 
much  success.  A  part  of  the  Home  Mission  activity 
of  the  Council  is  the  work  among  the  Slav  and  Hun- 
garian and  allied  nationalities,  as  also  the  mission 
work  in  Porto  Rico,  which  was  begun  after  the 
cessation  of  the  Spanish-American  war.  The  Rev. 
Dr.  A.  L.  Ramer  is  the  Superintendent  of  the  Slav  mis- 
sion work.  He  spent  two  years  in  Hungary  before  he 
entered  upon  his  labors  at  home.  The  lack  of  suitable 
laborers  is  particularly  felt  in  this  work,  and  explains 
why  the  work  has  not  yet  gone  beyond  the  boundary 
of  promising  beginnings.  In  Porto  Rico  there  are  now 
eight  missions,  with  nine  congregations  and  six 
preaching  stations.  Even  here  the  work  is  still  in  its 
beginning,  but  it  has  splendid  prospects  for  future 
success. 


§    20  BUX.KAPHICAL    NuTKS.  249 

Biographical   Notes. 

Prof.  W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D.,  born,  May  29,  1819,  at  Stuttgart. 
Wucrtembcrg.  equipped  with  an  excellent  theological  train- 
ing, came  to  America  in  1845,  through  the  influence  of  his 
intimate  friend,  Dr.  Philip  Schaflf.  At  first  he  was 
pastor  of  a  Reformed  congregation,  co-operated  with  Dr. 
SchafF  in  editing  the  "Deutsche  Kirchenfreund,"  later  be- 
coming editor-in-chief.  In  1850  he  joined  the  Lutheran 
Church,  was  received  into  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium, 
served  Zion's  congregation  in  Philadelphia,  and  in  1864  be- 
came German  professor  in  the  Philadelphia  Seminary.  He 
also  took  part  in  combating  "American  Lutheranism," 
through  two  excellent  books,  "A  Plea  for  the  Augsburg 
Confession"  (1856)  and  "Lutheranism  in  America"  (1859). 
He  was  a  very  prolific  writer,  and  published,  among  other 
things,  a  biography  of  Muhlenberg  in  German  and  English. 
He  rendered  the  Church  an  exceptionally  valuable  service 
in  editing  a  new  edition  of  the  "Hallesche  Nachrichten." 
This  noted  German-American  theologian,  with  his  rich 
theological  idealism,  is  represented  to  us  in  a  pleasing  man- 
ner by  Dr.  A.  Spaeth  in  his  "Erinnerungsblaetter."  He  died 
in  1892. 

Rev.  W.  A.  Pasaavant,  D.  D.,  of  Huguenot  ancestry,  was 
born  at  Zelienople.  Pa..  October  9,  1821,  received  his  theo- 
logical training  at  Gettysburg,  and  while  yet  a  student  he 
published  the  first  Lutheran  Almanac  issued  in  America: 
served  congregations  in  Baltimore  and  Pittsburg;  pub- 
lished "The  Missionary,"  which  was  merged  into  "The  Lu- 
theran and  Missionary"  in  1861;  founded  the  "Workman" 
in  1880,  the  editor  of  which  he  remained  until  his  death.  In 
co-operation  with  Fliedner  of  Kaiserswerth,  he  established 
the  deaconess  work  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America 
(§20:2);  founded  orphanages,  and  hospitals;  was  instru- 
mental in  founding  Thiel  College  and  the  Chicago  Sem- 
inary.    He  died  in  1894. 

Rev.  B.  M.  Schmucker,  D.  D.,  son  of  Dr.  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
received  his  training  at  Gettysburg  College  and  Seminary. 
Through  the  influence  of  Dr.  Krauth  he  was  led  to  become 


250  THE   GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20 

identified  with  the  conservative  party  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  became  a  member  of  the  General  Council.  He 
was  the  foremost  liturgical  scholar  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America,  and  the  Church  Book  of  the  General  Council, 
the  English  as  well  as  the  German,  is  primarily  the  product 
of  his  eminent  liturgical  and  hymnological  studies.  He  was 
a  member  of  the  Joint  Committee  for  the  preparation  of 
the  Common  Service,  and  the  preface  is  the  work  of  his 
facile  pen.     He  died  in  1888. 

Rev.  G.  F.  Krotel,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  February  4,  1826, 
in  Alsfeld,  Wuertemberg,  came  with  his  parents  to  Phila- 
delphia in  1830.  For  a  number  of  years  he  attended  an 
academy  in  Philadelphia  connected  with  the  parochial 
school  of  St.  Michael's  and  Zion's  congregations.  In  1842  he 
entered  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  graduated  in 
1846.  He  studied  theology  under  Dr.  Demme,  and  entered 
the  office  of  the  ministry  in  1850.  He  served  congregations 
in  Philadelphia,  Lebanon,  Lancaster,  Pa.,  again  in  Philadel- 
phia, 1861,  at  the  same  time  serving  as  a  member  of  the 
faculty  of  the  Philadelphia  Seminary.  He  was  frequently 
elected  to  the  presidency  of  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium, 
and  was  President  of  the  General  Council  in  1869.  He  was 
widely  known  as  a  pulpit  orator.  After  Dr.  Krauth's  resig- 
nation he  became  editor  of  the  "Lutheran,"  a  position  in 
which  he  manifested  excellent  gifts.  He  was  a  prolific 
writer,  and  was  one  of  the  most  influential  men  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council.     He  died  in  1907. 

Rev.  J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  in  Frederick  County, 
Maryland,  educated  at  Gettysburg  College,  studied  theology 
and  entered  the  office  of  the  ministry  in  1842.  He  served 
congregations  in  Martinsburg  and  Shepherdstown,  W.  Va., 
Cumberland,  Md.,  Frederick,  Md.,  and  Baltimore.  In  1858  he 
became  pastor  of  St.  John's  English  Lutheran  Church,  Phil- 
adelphia, which  he  served  for  sixteen  years,  when  out  of 
this  congregation  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion  was 
organized,  which  he  served  until  his  death  in  1904.  Dr. 
Seiss  exercised  a  strong  influence  as  a  member  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Ministerium,  whose  president  he  was  for  many 
years,   and   as    a   member    of   the    General    Council,   whose 


§    20  UIOGRAPIllCAL    NOTF.S.  25 1 

president  he  also  was.  As  a  pulpit  orator  and  a  writer  he 
was  widely  known.  Particularly  well  known  are  his  writ- 
ings on  the  Last  Things  (The  Last  Times;  Lectures  on  the 
Apocalypse,  3  volumes),  which  caused  him  to  be  charged 
with  the  introduction  of  chiliastic  errors.  He  published 
man}'  books,  most  of  which  are  expositions  of  Scripture 
and  discussions  of  various  ecclesiastical  questions. 

Prof.  A.  Spaeth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  born  December  29,  1839, 
in  Esslingen,  Wuertcmberg,  was  educated  in  the  Latin 
School  of  his  native  place,  in  the  Pro-Seminary  at  Blau- 
beuren,  and  in  the  University  of  Tuebingen.  He  was  as- 
sistant pastor  and  was  ordained  in  1861 ;  private  tutor  in 
Italy,  France,  and  Scotland,  until  1864,  when  he  followed  a 
call  as  associate  pastor,  with  Dr.  W.  J.  Mann,  of  Zion's 
Lutheran  congregation  in  Philadelphia.  In  1867  he  became 
pastor  of  the  newly  organized  St.  Johannis  congregation  in 
Philadelphia.  In  1873  he  became  professor  in  the  Philadel- 
phia Seminar}'.  He  was  President  of  the  General  Council 
(1880-1888),  and  of  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  (1892- 
1895).  He  remained  pastor  of  St.  Johannis  congregation 
until  his  death,  serving  that  congregation  in  addition  to  his 
labors  in  the  Seminary.  He  was  a  fine  liturgical  and  hym- 
nological  scholar,  as  well  as  in  the  province  of  church 
music.  He  also  approved  himself  as  a  historian  (Biography 
of  Dr.  W.  J.  Mann;  especially  of  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth. 
in  2  volumes).  He  is  the  author  of  the  article  on  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America  in  Hauck,  Realencyclopediae. 
He  also  published  a  number  of  homiletical  works:  Sermons 
for  Children,  Gospels  of  the  Church  Year,  Seed  Thoughts. 
He  had  special  gifts  as  a  pulpit  orator.  He  took  a  deep 
interest  in  the  deaconess  work,  and  to  his  efforts  it  is  due 
that  the  German  Hospital  in  Philadelphia  was  brought  into 
the  existing  relation  with  the  Philadelphia  Motherhouse 
for  Deaconesses,  and  that  the  entire  work  has  attained 
its  present  churchly  foundation.     He  died  June  25,  1910. 

Prof.  R.  F.  Weidner,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  born  in  Center 
Valley,  Lehigh  County,  Pa.,  November  22,  1851,  and  was  edu- 
cated at  Muhlenberg  College,  Allentown,  and  the  Theolog- 
ical   Seminary    at    Philadelphia.     He   was   ordained    in    1873, 


252  TJU;    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20 

and  became  pastor  of  Grace  Church,  Phillipsburg,  X.  J.,  in 
connection  with  which  he  served  as  professor  of  English 
and  Logics  in  Muhlenberg  College  until  1877.  From  1878- 
1882  he  was  professor  of  Dogmatics  and  Exegesis  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  of  the  Augustana  Synod,  Rock  Island. 
He  was  pastor  of  St.  Luke's  Church,  Philadelphia,  and  as- 
sistant pastor  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Communion,  Phila- 
delphia, for  a  number  of  years.  In  the  year  1891  he  was 
elected  President  of  the  newly  founded  Theological  Sem- 
inary of  the  General  Council  in  Chicago,  and  at  the  same 
time  as  professor  of  Dogmatics  and  Hebrew.  All  his  ener- 
gies were  directed  towards  the  building  up  of  the  Seminary, 
which  through  his  leadership  has  attained  an  influential 
position  in  the  Church.  He  was  a  prolific  writer  and  pub- 
lished numerous  books,  many  of  which  were  valuable  works 
of  German  theologians,  freely  elaborated  by  him  in  English. 
Zockler,  on  this  account,  once  properly  called  him  a  pon- 
tifex,  i.  e.,  a  builder  of  bridges  for  the  transfer  of  German 
theology  into  the  garb  of  the  English  language.  He  pub- 
lished :  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  1881 ;  Theo- 
logical Encyclopedia  and  Methodology  (3  vols.),  1885-1891 ; 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  1886;  Introduction 
to  Dogmatic  Theology,  1888;  An  Introductory  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  Method,  1889;  Studies  in  the  Book,  —  New 
Testament  (3  vols.),  1890;  Old  Testament,  Genesis  (1  vol.), 
1892;  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  1891;  Chris- 
tian Ethics,  1891 ;  Examination  Questions  in  Church  History 
and  Christian  Archaeology,  1893;  Annotations  on  the  Gen- 
eral Epistles,  1897;  Commentary  on  Revelation,  1898  (Vols. 
XI  and  XII  of  Lutheran  Commentary)  ;  Theologia,  or  Doc- 
trine of  God,  1903;  Ecclesiology,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Church,  1903;  The  Doctrine  of  the  Ministry,  1907;  The  Doc- 
trine of  Man,  1912;  Christology,  or  the  Doctrine  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ,  1913;  Soteriology,  1914;  Pneumatology,  1915. 
While  engaged  in  writing  this  note,  the  report  has  reached 
us  of  the  death  of  this  untiring  laborer.  Untiring  activity, 
remarkable  devotion  to  his  life-work  (the  building  up  of 
the  Seminary),  firm  adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  (inspiration  of  the  Bible  and  justification  by 
faith  alone),  fine  mental  gifts  coupled  with  personal  mag- 


^    20  lUOGRAPHICAL    NOTKS.  253 

netism,  througli  which  he  drew  students  to  himself  and 
influenced  them,  —  all  these,  together  with  a  living  faith, 
constituted  the  principal  characteristics  of  this  great  man 
in  Israel.  For  a  number  of  years  he  had  been  physically 
weakened  by  paralysis,  but  he  lost  no  time  in  his  lectures, 
and  his  vast  literary  labors  continued  unabated,  so  that  at 
the  time  of  his  death  (January  6,  1915)  two  of  his  books 
were   passing  througli   the   press. 

Prof.  E.  T.  Horn,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Easton,  Pa.,  June 
10.  1850.  He  graduated  from  Pennsylvania  College  at  Get- 
tysburg in  1869  and  from  the  Seminary  in  1872.  He  served 
as  pastor  in  Philadelphia  (1872-96),  in  Charleston,  S.  C. 
(1876-97),  in  Reading,  Pa.  (1897-1911).  Then  he  was  called 
as  Professor  of  Ethics  and  of  Theory  and  Practice  of  Mis- 
sions at  the  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary  of  the  General 
Council  in  Philadephia,  where  he  died  in  1915.  He  was  au- 
thor of  a  number  of  works:  The  Christian  Year,  1876;  Old 
Matin  and  Vesper  Services  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  1882; 
The  Evangelical  Pastor,  1887;  Outline  of  Liturgies,  1890; 
Lutheran  Sources  of  the  Common  Service,  1890;  Transla- 
tion of  Loehe's  Catechism,  1893;  Commentary  on  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians,  I  and  II  Thessalonians  and  Philemon, 
1896;  The  Application  of  Lutheran  Principles  to  the  Church 
Building,  1905;  Summer  Sermons,  1908;  Translation  of 
Loehe's  Three  Books  on  the  Church,  1908. 

Prof.  G.  H.  Gerberding,  D.  D.,  was  born,  August  21,  1847. 
Pittsburg,  Pa.  He  received  his  classical  training  at  Thiel 
College,  Greenville,  and  Muhlenberg  College,  Allentown, 
Pa.,  and  his  theological  training  at  the  Philadelphia  Sem- 
inary. He  was  ordained  in  1876,  and  served  congregations 
in  Alleghany  City,  Pa.,  1876-1881;  Jewett,  Ohio,  1881-1887; 
Fargo,  X.  Dak.,  1887-1894,  from  which  he  was  called  to  Chi- 
cago Seminary  as  professor  of  Practical  Theologry.  He  is 
the  author  of  the  following  valuable  works:  The  Way  of 
Salvation  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  1887  (a  book  that  has 
passed  through  manj'  editions  and  enjoys  a  wide  circula- 
tion); Xew  Testament  Conversions,  1889;  The  Lutheran 
Pastor,  1902;  Life  and  Letters  of  Passavant,  1906;  The  Lu- 


254  THE   GENERAL    COUNCIL.  §    20 

theran  Catechist,  1910;   Problems  and  Possibilities,  Serious 
Considerations  for  all  Lutherans,  1914. 

Prof.  J.  A.  W.  Haas,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Philadelphia, 
August  31,  1862.  Having  received  his  training  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  the  Philadelphia  Seminary,  and  in 
Leipzig,  he  was  ordained  in  1888.  He  served  congregations 
in  New  York  until  1904,  when  he  accepted  a  call  as  Presi- 
dent of  Muhlenberg  College,  Allentown,  Pa.,  and  as  profes- 
sor of  Philosophy,  a  position  which  he  holds  at  present. 
He  is  the  author  of  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  in 
Lutheran  Commentary,  1895;  Bible  Literature,  1903;  Biblical 
Criticism,  1903;  with  Dr.  Jacobs,  editor  of  the  Lutheran 
Cyclopedia,  1899;  Trends  of  Thought  and  Christian  Truth, 
1915. 

Prof.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  S.  T.  D.,  was  born  at 
Gettysburg,  Pa.,  November  10,  1844.  He  received  his  train- 
ing in  the  College  and  Seminary  at  Gettysburg,  graduating 
from  the  Seminary  in  1865,  and  was  professor  in  the  College 
at  Gettysburg,  1864-1867.  He  served  a  mission  congregation 
in  Pittsburg,  1867-1868.  He  was  recalled  to  Gettysburg  as 
professor  of  Latin  and  History,  1870-1880;  from  1880-1883, 
he  taught  exclusively  the  ancient  languages.  In  the  latter 
year  he  accepted  a  call  as  professor  of  Systematic  Theology 
in  the  Philadelphia  Seminary,  a  position  he  still  holds. 
From  1882-1896,  he  was  also  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
Review.  Under  his  editorial  supervision  the  Lutheran 
Commentary  became  a  possibility,  1895-1898,  as  also  the 
Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  1899.  He  is  the  author  of  the  follow- 
ing works:  The  Lutheran  Movement  in  England,  1899;  His- 
tory of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  1893;  Elements  of 
Religion,  1894;  Commentary  on  Romans,  1896;  Commentary 
on  First  Corinthians,  1897;  Life  of  Martin  Luther,  1898; 
The  German  Emigration  to  America,  1709-1740,  1899;  Sum- 
mary of  the  Christian  Faith,  1905. 

Prof.  Theodore  E.  Schmauk,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  was  born  at 
Lancaster,  Pa.,  1860,  educated  at  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  the  Philadelphia  Seminary,  and  was  ordained  in 
1882.     Since   1895  he   has  been  the   editor  of  the  Lutheran 


§    20  HfOC.RAPHICAL    NOTF.S.  255 

Church  Review;  since  1896,  editor  of  the  graded  Sunday- 
School  Lessons  of  the  General  Council;  and  since  1911  pro- 
fessor of  Apologetics  in  the  Philadelphia  Seminary.  In  ad- 
dition, he  serves  his  congregation  at  Lebanon,  Pa.  Since 
1903,  he  has  been  President  of  the  General  Council.  He  is 
the  author  of  the  following  works:  The  Xegativc  Criticism 
of  the  O.  T..  1894;  Catechetical  Outlines.  1892;  History  of  Old 
Salem  and  Lebanon.  1898;  The  Early  History  of  the  Lebanon 
Valley,  1902;  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. 1903;  The  Confessions  and  the  Confessional  Principle 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  1909;  Annotated  Edition  of  Ben- 
jamin Rush's  Account  of  the  German  Inhabitants  of  Penn- 
sylvania,  1910:   diristianitv   and   Thristian  Union,  1913. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  SYNODICAL  CONFERENCE. 


§  21.     Introductory. 

The  Synodical  Conference,  the  largest  body  of 
Lutherans  in  America,  was  organized  in  1872  at  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.,  by  the  union  of  the  Missouri,  Wis- 
consin, Minnesota,  Illinois,  Norwegian  and  Ohio 
Synods.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  withdrew  in  1881 
on  account  of  the  predestination  controversy  (§  28, 
2,  c).  The  Norwegians  (§  32,  III,  2)  withdrew  in 
1883,  hoping  to  settle  the  same  controversy  by  being 
independent.  The  Illinois  Synod  (§  7,  4;  10,  3,  A.  d ; 
17,  1,  3 ;  22,  7,  d)  was  absorbed  by  the  Missouri  Synod 
in  1880.  Since  the  Wisconsin  (§  25,  1)  and  the  Minne- 
sota Synods  (§25,  11),  together  with  the  Michigan 
Synod,  (§25),  which  had  left  the  General  Council, 
were  merged  into  one  body  (§  25,  III,  4,  5  ;  17,  3)  ;  since 
the  District  of  Nebraska  became  an  independent 
synod  (§  25,  IV),  and  since  the  Slovak  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  and  other  States 
(§  26)  has  united  with  the  Synodical  Conference,  it  is 
now  composed  of  the  following  synods:  1.  The  Mis- 
souri Synod ;  2.  The  Synods  of  Wisconsin,  Minnesota, 
Michigan  and  Nebraska ;  3.  The  Slovak  Evangelical 
Synod  of  Pennsylvania  and  other  States. 


"°  According  to  the  statistics  of  1914,  it  has  2,928  ministers,  4,634 
congregations   and  preaching  stations,   and  765,598  communicants. 

'*'  From  1888  to  1911  the  English  Missouri  Synod  was  a  separate 
unit  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  but  has  now  been  merged  into  the 
Missouri  Synod. 

(256) 


A. 
§  22.     How  It  Came  Into  Existence. 


THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD. 
I.     The   Saxons. 

The  Rev.  Martin  Stephan,  pastor  of  St.  John's 
Church,  Pirna  (a  suburb  near  Dresden,  Germany), 
from  1810  to  1837,  was  the  man  whose  strange  per- 
sonality was  to  become  a  factor  in  the  early  history 
of  the  Missouri  Synod.  Born  of  poor  Christian 
parents  at  Stramberg,  Moravia,  in  1777.  he  came, 
while  in  Breslau.  under  the  influence  of  Scheibel,  a 
Lutheran  professor  of  strong  convictions.  Stephan 
finished  his  theological  studies  at  Halle  and  Leipzig, 
and,  as  a  minister  who  preached  Christ  crucified  in  an 
age  of  rationalism,  he  exerted  a  remarkable  influence 
on  all  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  Out  of  the 
depth  of  his  spiritual  experiences  and  on  account  of 
his  thorough  familiarity  with  the  workings  of  the 
human  heart,  he  had  a  peculiar  gift  of  combating 
doubts  and  inner  conflicts  with  timely  and  appropriate 
advice.  He  cared  little  for  mere  oratorical  effects, 
but  stated,  in  the  plainest  speech  he  could  command, 
the  gospel  of  grace.  His  hearers,  unless  contaminated 
with  the  spirit  of  the  scoffer,  were  invariably  greatly 
affected.     Hungering  souls  sought  his  counsel. 

Among  those  who  were  attracted  to  him  was 
Cari  Ferdinand  Wilhelm  Walther,  then  (1829)  a  theo- 
logical student  at  Leipzig,  whose  influence  on  the 
17  (257) 


258  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,^ 

Missouri  Synod  was  to  be  fraught  with  such  great 
blessings.     He  was  born  in  Langenchursdorf,  Saxony, 
Oct.  25,  1811,  and  was  the  son  of  a  minister.     Having 
graduated  from  the  Gymnasium,  he  intended  to  study 
music,  but  owing  to  his  father's  objections,  he  aban- 
doned   this    idea.     When    he  became    a    student    at 
Leipzig,  he  was  utterly  ignorant  of  spiritual  matters, 
but    his    mind    was    a-thirst     for    knowledge.     The 
ministers  and  professors  at  Leipzig  were  all  repre- 
sentatives of  rationalism,  and  could  not  satisfy  the 
hunger   of  the   young  man's   heart.     Walther   spent 
his  last  penny  for  the  purchase  of  a  Bible,  not  know- 
ing where  he  was  to  get  his  next  meal.     He  took  part 
in  the  religious  meetings  of  groups  of  students  who 
assembled  for  common  prayer  and  the  study  of  the 
Bible  and  the  writings   of  Arndt,  Francke.   Scriver, 
Bogatzki,    etc.     These    students    had    found    Christ 
through  the  guidance  of  a  shoemaker  and  a  retired 
old  candidate  of  theology  by  the  name  of  Kuehn.     The 
latter  was   the   leader   of   this    circle.     Other    Saxon 
emigrants    who    participated   in    the    meetings    were 
Brohm,   Buenger  and   Fuerbringer.     Franz   DeHtsch, 
too,  belonged  to  this  circle.     In  his  book,  "Concerning 
the  House  of  God  and  the  Church,"  he  refers  to  these 
devotional  meetings  with  deep  emotion.     It  is  only 
natural    that    at    a    time    of    such    spiritual    dearth, 
Walther  and  his  friends  should  have  heard  of  Pastor 
Stephan.     In  his  great  perplexity  Walther  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  Pirna  pastor,  the  reply  to  which,  as  well 
as  the  words  of  the  wife  of  a  Leipzig  tax-collector, 
helped  him  to  find  the  peace  of  God  in  the  forgiveness 
of  his  sins. 


§    _'_>,'  THI-:    SAXONS.  259 

But  on  account  of  these  inner  contiicts,  which 
were  accompanied  by  constant  privation,  his  health 
gave  way.  Suffering  with  an  aftection  of  the  lungs, 
he  had  to  leave  the  university  and  return  home.  But 
this  was  evidently  a  part  of  God's  plan  for  him;  for  in 
his  father's  library  he  found  the  works  of  Luther,  and 
studied  them  with  unwearied  application,  and  thus 
laid  the  basis  fur  that  thorough  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  Luther  and  the  old  dogmaticians  which 
afterwards  distinguished  him.  In  1834  he  completed 
his  studies,  became  a  private  teacher  until  1836,  and 
was  ordained  as  pastor  at  Braeunsdorf.  Saxony,  in 
J^37.  For  more  than  forty  years  the  word  of  the 
cross  had  not  been  proclaimed  in  this  place.  Religious 
and  moral  indifference  reigned.  The  order  of  service, 
the  hymn-book  and  the  catechism  were  rationalistic. 
The  superintendent,  who  was  placed  over  him  and  the 
school-master  who  was  placed  under  him,  both  were 
rationalists.  His  efforts  to  introduce  Lutheran  doc- 
trine and  practice  met  with  determined  opposition. 
Other  members  of  the  circle  of  Bible  students  at 
Leipzig,  who  had  meanwhile  entered  the  ministry,  met 
with  a  like  experience.  These  therefore,  as  well  as 
Walther,  gladly  signified  their  consent  when  Stephan 
called  on  them  to  leave  Germany  with  him  in  order  to 
found  an  ideal  Church  in  America. 

The  determination  to  emigrrate  had  grown  stronger 
in  the  mind  of  Stephan  ever  since  Dr.  Kurtz  visited 
Germany  in  the  interest  of  the  Seminary  at  Gettys- 
burg (§  7.  4).  The  immediate  occasion  for  carrying 
out  this  determination  was  as  follows :  By  his 
earnest  activity  in  Dresden,  Stephan  had  gained  an 
ever-increasing  following.     But  the  love  of  those  to 


26o  THE    MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,^ 

whom  he  had  been  the  guide  to  the  Savior  partook 
more  and  more  of  the  nature  of  idolatry.  He  did  not 
resist  the  temptations  which  this  fact  involved.  He 
gradually  began  to  imagine  that  he  was  infallible ;  he 
became  imperious ;  at  last  his  unexcelled  gifts  for 
pastoral  ministration  became  a  snare  of  the  flesh. 

All  sorts  of  rumors  touching  his  character  began 
to  be  circulated.  More  than  once  they  were  investi- 
gated ;  but  as  these  efforts  failed  to  prove  him  guilty, 
the  charges  were  looked  upon  as  attempts  to  black- 
mail the  representative  of  positive  Lutheranism. 
While  this  may  have  been  partly  true,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  Stephan's  way  of  doing  things  justified 
certain  suspicions.  He  made  provision  for  prom- 
enades on  summer  evenings  for  his  followers  of  both 
sexes,  and  these  usually  lasted  until  morning.  In 
spite  of  the  warnings  of  his  superiors ;  indeed,  in  spite 
of  the  express  prohibition  of  the  civil  authorities,  he 
continued  them  until  at  last  he  was  arrested  by  the 
police  under  suspicious  circumstances. 

At  the  same  time  the  Bohemian  congregation  com- 
plained of  gross  neglect.  Although  an  offense  against 
morality  could  not  be  clearly  proved  against  him,  he 
was  deposed  from  his  office.  His  followers  regarded 
this  as  persecution  endured  for  Christ's  sake,  and  con- 
sequently waited  only  for  a  word  from  him  to  emi- 
grate. A  common  fund,  to  which  $125,000  had  been 
contributed,  was  entrusted  to  his  care.  Then  when 
the  emigrants,  750  in  number,  had  departed  in  several 
groups,  Stephan  secretly  left  Dresden  in  the  middle  of 
the  night,  without  taking  leave  of  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  joined  his  followers  at  Bremen.  On  five 
vessels   the    emigrants,    including   six   ministers,   ten 


§    22,'  THK    SAXONS.  2()I 

candidates  of  theology  and  tour  school-teachers,  set 
out  for  America.  One  of  the  ships,  the  "Arnalie," 
went  down ;  the  others  reached  New  Orleans.  On 
February  19,  1839,  the  last  of  the  immin^rants  arrived 
at  the  appointed  station,  St.  Louis. 

On  the  jway  over  Stephan  had  already  permitted 
himself  to  be  elected  by  his  followers,  both  men  and 
women,  as  their  bishop,  to  whom  they  swore  uncon- 
ditional obedience.  At  jthe  command  of  the  bishop, 
who  all  the  while  dealt  with  the  funds  of  the  company 
in  the  most  irresponsible  way,  and  of  course  greatly 
depletedjthem,  they  removed  to  Perry  Count3r»  110 
njiles  south  of  St.  Louis.  Stephan  ruled  like  a  pasha. 
The  plans  were  already  under  way  for  the  erection  of 
an  episcopal  palace  for  him,  when  the  colonists  were 
scandalized  by  a  shocking  discovery.  Among  the 
emigrants  who  had  remained  behind  in  St.  Louis  were 
several  girls,  who  confessed  that,  during  the  voyage 
aCTbss  the  ocean  Stephan  had,  by  an  abuse  of  God's 
holy  name  and  Word,  led  them  from  the  path  of 
virtue.  W'althcr  came  to  the  settlement  from  St. 
Louis,  arriving  in  the  dead  of  night,  and  bringing  with 
him  the  proofs  of  Stephan's  guilt.  Speaking  in  the 
Latin  language,  he  made  known  to  a  candidate  of 
theology,  who  reclined  beside  him  on  the  straw  in  the 
sleeping  apartment,  what  he  expected  to  make  known 
to  the  whole  company  on  the  morrow,  nainely,  that 
Stephan,  under  the  mask  of  a  pastor,  had  been  leading 
a  life  of  sin. 

A  formal  court  was  convened,  and  Stephan  was 
deposed  from  his  office.  He  was  transported  across 
the  Mississippi  River  in  a  boat,  supplied  with  sufficient 
provisions,   and   set    ashore    near   the   "Devil's    Bake 


262  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22/ 

Oven,"  a  fantastically  shaped  rock.  This  was  in  1839. 
Not  far  from  there,  a  few  miles  from  Red  Bud,  Ran- 
dolph County,  111.,  he  soon  found  a  small  congrega- 
tion. A  few  years  later  he  died  at  the  age  of  69, 
without  giving  any  signs  of  real  repentance. 

The  colonists  now  suffered  great  want.  The 
general  treasury,  as  they  now  discovered,  was  empty, 
owing  to  Stephan's  extravagance.  As  the  land  had  to 
be  made  arable  before  any  crops  could  be  raised,  the 
direst  poverty  stared  the  colony  in  the  face.  Still 
more  serious  was  the  spiritual  confusion  that  resulted 
from  their  sad  experience  with  their  once  trusted 
leader.  They  now  recognized  that  they  had  done 
wrong  in  following  him  so  blindly  ;  that  they  had  been 
guilty  of  making  an  idol  of  him,  and  that  they  had 
become  the  occasion  of  giving  offense  in  the  eyes  of 
the  world.  Indeed,  it  now  seemed  to  them  that  they 
had  committed  a  great  sin  in  thus  following  their  own 
ways  and  dissolving  their  connection  with  the  Church 
at  home.  The  pastors  themselves  imagined  that  their 
official  acts  were  invalid,  because  they  had  forsaken 
their  calling  in  the  Fatherland.  Consciences  were 
confused  and  distressed.  Divisions  began  to  appear. 
Some  openly  renounced  the  public  services.  Pastor 
Buenger  resigned  his  office  from  conscientious  scru- 
ples. The  confusion  lasted  through  the  entire  summer. 
The  matter  finally  resolved  itself  into  the  crucial 
question:  "Does  the  true  Christian  Church  really 
exist  or  not  among  those  who  emigrated  with 
Stephan?"  To  this  question  some  answered  yes, 
others  no.     (Fritschel,  Vol.  II,  p.  172.) 


§  22,'  Tin-:  SAXONS.  263 

It  was  Walther  whom  God  used  to  console  the 
tempted  ones  and  to  save  them  from  despair.  '"^ 
Through  continued  study  of  the  works  of  Luther  and 
the  Lutheran  fathers,  he  recognized  the  errors  of 
Stephan  in  respect  to  the  Church  and  the  ministry 
At  the  same  time  he  became  convinced  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  Church  consisted  of  the  Invisible  Conununion  of 
Saints;  that  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  Christ's  name,  there  is  the  Church ;  that,  conse- 
quently, these  congregations  of  the  colonists  were  to 
ho  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ, 
with  full  authority  to  call  pastors.  These  convictions 
Walther  successfully  maintained  in  a  disputation  in 
1841.  In  this  Avay  he  quieted  the  minds  of  the 
colonists,  and  brought  about  the  organization  of  con- 
gregations which  called  their  pastors.  Meanwhile  the 
outward  condition  of  the  settlers  had  also  improved, 
and  a  number  of  flourishing  villages  rose  in  the  wilder- 
ness. A  log  cabin,  whjcli^jvvas  the  humble  beginning 
of  Concordia  Seminary,  was  erected  to  serve  as  a 
boys^  training  school.  This  occurred  in  1839.  Wal- 
ther accepted  a  call  to  the  congregation  in  St.  Louis. 
There  he  began  in  1844  to  publish  "Der  Lutheraner.** 


'»'  In  order  to  understand  how  Walther  had  been  able  to  join 
Stephan,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  he,  as  well  as  the  majority 
of  the  ministers  and  candidates,  lived  at  so  great  a  distance  from 
Dresden  that  a  just  estimate  of  Stephan  was  hardly  to  be  expected  of 
them.  In  Walther's  presence  Stephan  had  always  felt  uncomfortable. 
He  called  Walther  his  Judas.  The  following  incident  may  be  added 
as  bearing  on  the  psychoIoRv  of  the  case.  Rudelbach  proposed  to 
suggest  Walther's  name  for  the  position  of  private  tutor,  but  made 
this  offer  conditional  on  Walther's  renouncing  Stephan.  Walther  re- 
plied: "Shall  I  desert  a  man  v  iio  saved  my  soul?"  Rudelbach  re- 
sponded: "Xo,  dear  Walther,  you  need  not  desert  him;  continue  your 
as.sociation  in  the  name  of  God;  but    ?uard   against  idolizing  a  man." 


264  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,^ 

The  seminary  was  also  soon  afterwards  transferred 
to  St.  Louis,  where  it  was  destined  to  play  so 
prominent  a  part  in  the  upbuilding  and  guiding-  of 
the  Missouri  Synod. 

2.     Wyneken  and  His  Appeal  For  Help. 

Frederick  Conrad  Diedrich  Wyneken  was  a  man 
whose  name  will  always  be  mentioned  with  respect  in 
any  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America.  Six 
months  before  the  "Saxons"  had  reached  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  he  had  landed  in  Baltimore  as  a  candidate 
of  theology.  He  might  appropriately  be  named  the 
Muhlenberg  of  the  western  synods  —  at  least,  so  far 
as  regards  missionary  work.  There  are  many  points 
of  resemblance  between  him  and  his  great  fellow- 
countryman  who  labored  a  century  before  him.  Like 
Muhlenberg,  he  came  from  Hanover,  and  studied  in 
Goettingen  and  Halle.  At  Halle  he  was  powerfully 
impressed  by  Tholuck,  whose  influence,  combined  with 
that  of  pious  families  in  which  he  was  afterwards 
engaged  as  private  tutor,  led  him  to  the  acceptance  of 
Christ  as  his  personal  Savior.  As  the  tutor  of 
wealthy  young  men,  he  traveled  through  France  and 
Italy,  and  acquired  the  use  of  the  EngHsh  language. 
For  a  time  he  was  principal  of  the  Latin  School  in 
Bremervoerde.  Here  he  read  a  missionary  report 
telHng  of  the  spiritual  needs  of  Western  America ;  so 
he  determined  to  serve  the  Lord  in  the  New  World. 

In  his  second  examination  before  a  rationalistic 
prelate  he  made  such  an  impression  by  his  emphatic 
testimony  for  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  he  received,  in 
spite  of  his  orthodox  position,  the  very  highest  mark. 
The  pious  Captain  Stuerje  took  him  to  Baltimore  free 


§    22r  WVNKKKN    ANU   HIS  APPEAI..  2.<i^ 

of  charge.  Here  he  looked  for  Lutherans,  but  hap- 
pened to  get  into  the  circle  of  the  "Otterbeinarians," 
and  in  this  way  made  acquaintance  with  the  ways  of 
Methodism.  Finally,  however,  he  found  a  Lutheran 
congregation  served  by  Pastor  Haesbart.  ^^*  At  the 
suggestion  of  this  pastor,  the  Pennsylvania  Minis- 
terium  sent  him  to  Indiana  for  the  purpose  of  gather- 
ing into  congregations  the  scattered  "J'rotestants." 
He  started  on  this  trip  in  September,  traveling  to 
Pittsburgh  by  boat  and  rail,  and  through  Ohio  on 
horseback.  In  Ohio  he  found  large  settlements  that 
had  no  pastor  for  years.  He  baptized  and  confirmed 
many  persons.  But,  much  as  he  cherished  the  people 
there,  he  would  not  remain.  In  Adams  County  he 
discovered  a  deserted  congregation  and  began  his 
missionary  labors  there.  In  every  respect  he  was  an 
ideal  missionary.  This  was  his  main  work,  especially 
during  the  first  part  of  his  American  labors.  At 
Fort  Wayne  he  found  a  handful  of  Lutherans  whose 
niini>lcr  had  recently  died.  They  did  not  even  have 
a  church.  These  people  urged  him  to  become  their 
jjastor.  He  referred  them  to  the  mission  board  that 
had  sent  him.  The  board  agreed,  but  insisted  that  he 
give  part  of  his  time  to  the  duties  of  a  traveling 
missionary. 

Thus  he  extended  his  work  even  into  central 
Michigan.  He  was  indefatigable,  and,  like  Muhlen- 
berg, had  an  extraordinary  constitution.  But  amid 
unnumbered  hardships,  traveling  through  woods  and 
swamps,  he  contracted  an  affection  of  the  throat.  He 
would  not   seek  medical   aid   from   the   poor  doctors 


'••In    this    way    the    congregation    learned    lo    knuw    him,    and    thus, 
later  on,   called   him   as   the   »ucces»or   of   Haesbart. 


266  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,^ 

of  that   vicinity,   but   decided   to  return  to   Europe, 

hoping  to  have  his  health  restored,  and  earnestly  de- 
siring to  arouse  the  Church  of  Germany  to  greater 
missionary  zeal.  Having  been  relieved  by  a  substi- 
tute from  Germany  in  1841,  he  returned  to  his  native 
land  to  interest  the  friends  of  missions  in  his  work  in 
America.  He  traveled  through  all  parts  of  Germany, 
and  was  everywhere  cordially  received,  and  entered 
into  negotiations  with  representative  men.  But  it 
was  no  easy  task  to  get  the  right  kind  of  laborers 
for  the  distant  vineyard.  In  accordance  with  a  cher- 
ished desire,  he  went  to  Bavaria  to  meet  Loehe,  who, 
having  read  his  reports,  had  become  deeply  interested 
in  the  American  missionary  enterprise.  There  he 
met  the  first  two  helpers  instructed  by  Loehe.  At 
Erlangen  he  was  welcomed  by  Pastor  Raumer.  He 
visited  Dresden,  Leipzig  and  the  vicinity.  His  ad- 
dresses resulted  in  the  formation  of  societies  which 
promised  help.  Especially  effective  was  his  pamphlet 
entitled,  "The  Destitution  of  the  German  Lutherans  m 
North  America,"^"''  in  the  preparation  of  which  he  was 
assisted  by  Raumer  and  Loehe.  '*"' 

All  t!iis  shows  the  great  importance  of  Wyneken's 
efforts  in  both  America  and  Germany.  His  value  to 
the  immigrants  of  that  time  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. When  he  returned  to  America  in  1843,  the 
dawn  of  a  better  time  was  breaking.  That  this  came 
about  was  the  result,  in  a  large  measure,  of  his  earnest 


^''"  It  first  appeared  in  the  "Eriaiiger  Zeitschrift  fuer  Protestan- 
tismus,"   and   was    afterward    reprinted    in   pamphlet    form. 

^''''  The  substance  of  this  pamphlet,  which  clearly  reveals  Wyneken's 
missionary  zeal,  is  given  by  Fritschel,  Vol.  II,  pp.  130-138.  A  number 
of  characteristic  anecdotes  of  Pastor  Wyneken  are  recited  on  pages 
620-630  of  Dr.   Morris's   "Fifty   Years  in   the   Lutheran   Ministry." 


§    22,^  LuEilE  AND  HIS  INSTITUTIONS.  267 

and  well  directed  appeals  for  aid.  Missionary  zeal 
had  been  kindled ;  the  Mother  Church  was  willing  to 
do  her  duty  to  her  emigrating;  children.  The  only 
task  now  was  to  keep  the  fire  burning.  Ways  and 
means  had  to  be  found  to  deserve  by  good  deeds  the 
good  will  that  had  been  created.  The  continuation 
of  this  task  fell  to  the  lot  of  William  Loehe,  who  came 
into  the  foreground  as  Wyneken  retired  into  the  back- 
ground ;  for  the  latter  Avas  not  eminently  fitted  for 
leadership,  but  for  solid  and  enduring,  though  humble, 
work.  Wyneken  also  soon  left  the  mission  held  and 
became  pastor  of  Haesbart's  congregation. 

3.     Loehe  and  His   Institutions. 

-**'  In  the  "Noerdlinger  Sonntagsblatt"  Loehe  had 
published  an  appeal  for  funds  to  relieve  the  great 
dearth  of  ministers  in  America  ;  and  in  a  short  time 
he  received  700  florins.  At  the  same  time  two  young 
mechanics  announced  their  willingness  to  be  trained 
for  the  work.  Other  organizations  promised  their 
support,  and  accordingly  Loehe  undertook,  in  a  very 
modest  way  at  first,  the  work  of  training  men.  In 
September,  1842,  his  first  missionaries  (Burger  and 
Ernst)  arrived  in  New  York.  Their  instructions  were 
to  seek  positions  as  lay  readers  and  teachers.  In 
New  York  they  met  the  Rev.  Mr.  Winkler,  who  had 
been  called  as  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
of  the  Ohio  Svnod  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  and  was  on  his 


="' To  Fritschcl  helungs  the  credit  of  having  clearly  cxhit.itcil,  on 
the  basis  of  the  reports  which  Loehe  published  in  "Kirchliche  Mit- 
teilungen  aus  und  uebcr  Amcrika"  for  the  years  1843-1847,  the  impor- 
tant part  which  Loehe  took  in  the  organization  of  the  strict  Lutheran 
synods  of  America,  especially  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  which  hail  such 
an   unexampled  growth. 


268  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,^ 

way  there.  He  induced  both  of  them  to  go  with  him 
to  Columbus  to  prepare  themselves  for  the  ministry. 
They  accompanied  him,  and  this  fact  was  the  occasion 
of  the  temporary  union  between  Loehe  and  the  Ohio 
Synod. 

The  synod  requested  him  to  send  more  students 
who  had  received  a  preliminary  training.  Such  men 
were  sent  in  rapid  succession,  among  them  some  who 
had  received  a  university  education.  One  of  the  latter 
was  Dr.  Sihler,  who  afterwards  became  the  successor 
of  Dr.  Wyneken  as  pastor  in  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana,  and 
around  whom  the  other  men  sent  by  Loehe  grouped 
themselves  as  their  leader. 

At  that  time  two  tendencies  were  striving  for  the 
upper  hand  in  the  Ohio  Synod :  an  English  tendency, 
which  desired  to  make  the  English  the  prevalent 
language  in  the  Seminary  at  Columbus,  and  which 
represented  the  laxer  form  of  Lutheranism ;  and  a 
German  tendency,  which  insisted  on  the  supremacy 
of  the  German  language  in  the  Seminary,  because,  for 
the  present  at  least,  the  German  language  was  essen- 
tial to  the  maintenance  of  a  positive  Lutheranism. 
Both  parties  were  represented  in  the  Seminary,  the 
German  by  Professor  Winkler,  the  English  by  Pro- 
fessor C.  F.  Schaefifer.  In  the  outcome  the  English 
prevailed,  and  all  the  Loehe  men,  ten  in  number,  left 
the  synod. 

Loehe  severed  his  relations  with  the  Ohio  Synod, 
and  decided  to  bring  about  the  organization  of  a  new 
synod  on  a  strictlv  Lutheran  basis. 


**"  Dr.  Schaeffer  was  also  professor  in  the  seminary  of  the  General 
Synod  at  Gettysburg,  Pa.,  from  1857  to  1864,  and  in  that  of  the  General 
Council  at   Philadelphia   from  1864  to  1879. 


§    22."  LOKIIK   AM)   11  IS   INSTITUTIONS.  269 

Some  other  men  whom  I.oehe  had  sent  to  America 
had  gone  to  Michigan,  in  company  with  a  considerable 
number  of  immigrants  after  1845.  Here  a  Michigan 
Synod  had  existed  since  1840,  but  as  early  as  1846  the 
conservative  element  had  withdrawn  from  it.  Here 
the  PVanconian  colonies,  "Frankenmut,"  "Franken- 
trost,"  "Frankenlust,"  and  "Frankenhilf,"  were  estab- 
lished in  Saginaw  County,  and  here  Loehe  founded  a 
seminary  for  the  education  of  teachers.  Among  the 
pastors  who  came  to  this  colony  was  A.  Craemer,  who 
had  been  ordained  by  Dr.  Kliefoth  in  the  cathedral  in 
Schwerin,  and  who,  later,  was  president  for  many 
years  of  the  Practical  Seminary  of  the  Missouri 
Synod  at  Springfield,  111.  Besides  him  may  be  men- 
tioned Pastors  Sievers  and  Graebner;  Baierlein,  a 
missionary  ;-''*^  and  later  pastors  Deindoerfer  and 
Grossmann. 

4.     Organization   and   Growth   of   the    Missouri   Synod. 

All  the  men  whom  we  have  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  passages  were  men  of  the  same  kind  —  the 
"Saxons";  Wyneken,  who  in  1845  withdrew  from  the 
General  Synod  after  protesting  against  its  non- 
Lutheran  features  at  the  Philadelphia  convention,  and 
the  followers  of  Loehe,  who  did  not  feel  at  home  in 
the  Ohio  and  Michigan  Synods.     These  groups  —  the 

"•When  Loehe  founded  the  first  of  his  colonies  in  Michigan,  hi.i 
purpose  was  to  work  amonjc  the  Indians.  This  mission,  begun  by 
Craemer  and  continued  by  Baierlein,  is  admirably  described  by  the  lat- 
ter in  his  book  entitled,  "Im  Urwald  bci  den  Roten  Indianern;"  also 
in  Fritschcls  "Die  Indiancr  Missi^m  in  Michigan,"  .t  part  of  his  German 
"History  of  the   Luther.in   Church   in  America,"   pp.   198-217. 

**  These  last  two  names  recall  the  rupture  between  the  Missouri 
Synod  and  Loehe  (8  28,  2),  and  the  subsequent  founding  of  the  Iowa 
Synod   (J  29.   1). 


270  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,* 

small  one  in  the  West  and  the  large  one  in  the  East  — 
merely  needed  combination.  In  September,  1845,  the 
adherents  of  Loehe  met  at  Oeveland,  Ohio,  and  with- 
drew from  the  Ohio  Synod.  At  the  same  time  they 
sent  a  delegation,  headed  by  Dr.  Sihler,  to  the 
"Saxons"  in  St.  Louis  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
closer  affiliation  (1846).  Walther  outlined  a  consti- 
tution, which  the  Loehe  people  declared  satisfactory. 
In  the  month  of  July  of  the  same  year  representatives 
of  both  sides  convened  at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.  Here  the 
constitution  was  again  discussed,  and  a  resolution 
was  passed  for  the  calling  of  the  first  convention  of 
the  "Synod  of  Missouri,  Ohio  and  other  States,"  to 
be  held  at  Chicago  in  April,  1847.  ^"^  Meanwhile 
Loehe  had  already  founded  a  Seminary  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Ind.,  where  students,  trained  in  Germany, 
were  to  finish  their  studies  for  the  American  ministry. 
Dr.  Sihler  was  made  the  head  of  this  institution, 
which  became  a  school  of  the  synod.  "Der  Luther- 
aner,"  edited  by  Walther,  was  made  the  synodical 
paper.  The  exceedingly  rapid  growth  of  the  new 
synod  —  from  1847  to  1851  it  increased  from  15  minis- 
ters and  12  congregations  to  81  ministers  and  95  con- 
gregations —  is  due  to  a  series  of  fortunate  circum- 
stances. The  followers  of  Loehe,  who  almost  without 
exception  had  united  with  it,  represented  a  goodly 
number.  At  the  Fort  Wayne  convention  (1846)  24 
of  the  Loehe  people  were  present,  and  more  were 
constantly  arriving,  until  the  contribution  of  ministers 
from  Neuendettelsau  to  the  Missouri  Synod  amounted 
to  84.  The  synod  furthermore  had  two  Theological 
Seminp.rie>5  /'Fort  Wavne  and  St.  Louis),  which  were 


"^  See    §  27,    1,    concerning:   the   principles   of   this    constitution. 


§    22/  ORGANIZATION    AND  (iKOWTH.  27 1 

soon  filled  with  students  sent  from  all  parts  of  Ger- 
many,""  where  the  Missouri  Synod  was  regarded  as 
the  only  German  and  Lutheran  Synod  of  America. 
The  Seminary  at  Fort  Wayne  alone  graduated  forty- 
eight  ministers  between  1846  and  1854.  It  must  also 
be  borne  in  mind  that  at  this  time  German  immigra- 
tion was  very  large.  Among  the  ministers,  a  number 
of  German  university  men-°^  were  actively  engaged 
with  Walther  in  the  missionary  activities  of  this 
rising  synod  in  the  ever-widening  territory  of  the 
West.  These  circumstances  explain  the  phenomenal 
growth  of  this  body.  -'*"* 

5.  Walther's  eminence,  especially  at  the  founding 
of  the  Missouri  Synod,  is  very  apparent.  Says  Pro- 
fessor L.  Fuerbringer:  "All  the  factors,  namely, 
Saxons,  Loehe  and  Wyneken,  must  be  emphasized.     1 


-'^Students    (rom    Neuendettelsau    were    continually     sent    to    Fort 
Wayne. 

="  Wyneken,     Sihler,     Pick,     Sievers,     Roebbclcii,     CraL-mcr.     Biohm. 
Bucnger,    rucrbringcr,    Lochner,    Kehl. 

"''^  We  shoiilil  mention  two  other  schools  which,  bctwien  1860  and 
1870,  supplied  students  for  the  Missouri  Synod.  Prof.  Fuerbringer  say.^: 
"Walther,  at  his  second  visit  to  Germany,  conferred  with  Pastor  Brunn 
of  Nassau  concerning  a  t'lCrman  pro-seminary  where  students  might 
be  prepared  for  American  institutions.  Brunn  agreed,  and,  though  he 
had  only  limited  means,  produced  astonishing  results.  The  institution 
was  opened  in  1861  and  closed  in  1878.  During  this  brief  time  it  fur- 
nished our  synod  with  200  young  men,  who  studied  at  Fort  Wayne  or 
at  Addison  or  at  the  Practical  Seminary  and  became  pastors  and  teach- 
ers. Brunn  did  not  terminate  his  activity  .ilon.^  this  line  until  the 
need  ceased  to  )jf  prossin?.  Read  his  'Monthly'  and  the  notes  from 
his  life.  Theodore  Harms  has  also  helpeil  in  this  respect.  Since  1866 
he  has  sent  a  number  of  young  men  who  were  cither  completely  trained 
in  his  Mission  House  or  graduated  to  our  American  institutions.  On 
the  other  hand,  help  was  sent  from  this  country  for  the  support  of 
the  Hermannsburg  Mission.  Harms  helped  different  synods  for  fifteen 
years.  On  account  of  disagreements,  especially  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  predestination,  this  relationship  ceased.  The  three  volumes  of 
Haccius'  'History  of  Missions"  give  some  facts  bearing  on  this  circum 
stance,    which,    however,    are    not    always    reliable." 


272  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22,' 

am  far  from  under-estimating  the  merit  of  Wyneken 
and  Loehe.  Wyneken,  to  be  sure,  was  the  first  on 
the  ground,  but  was  isolated.  Moreover,  he  was  not 
especially  gifted  as  an  organizer.  He  was  a  mission- 
ary. The  historian  must  not  overlook  or  under-esti- 
mate  the  founding  of  'Der  Lutheraner.'  Its  first 
number  was  published  when  Loehe's  followers  were 
still  in  the  Ohio  and  Michigan  Synods  (Sept.  7,  1844). 
Wyneken,  upon  receiving  this  number,  exclaimed : 
'Thank  God,  there  are  still  real  L^utherans  in  the 
country !' " 

Sihler,  in  his  autobiography,  comments  as  follows : 
"It  was  a  great  joy  to  me  when  the  first  number  of 
the  'Lutheraner'  was  published  in  1844,  and  after 
receiving  subsequent  numbers,  I  did  not  hesitate  to 
commend  it  to  my  congregations  and  to  circulate 
them.  Wyneken,  too,  was  highly  elated;  both  of  us 
hoped  for  the  sound  enlivening  and  strengthening  of 
our  Church  from  the  Saxon  brethren,  for  we  both 
readily  saw  that  greater  clearness  and  precision  of 
doctrinal  teaching  than  we  had  must  be  present  with 
them."  For  this  very  reason  Sihler,  Lochner  and 
Ernst  went  for  consultation  concerning  the  new  synod 
to  St.  Louis.  Certain  it  is  that  Loehe,  by  establishing 
a  practical  seminary,  etc.,  rendered  the  most  eminent 
services.  But  the  pre-eminence  of  Walther  cannot  be 
denied.  Says  Sihler  concerning  the  conference  with 
the  Saxons :  "The  most  potent  impression  was  made 
upon  us  beyond  doubt  by  Walther.  He  was  also, 
above  all  others,  the  vitalizing  and  organizing  genius 
in  outlining  the  principles  for  an  orthodox  (i.  e.,  Lu- 
theran) union  of  congregations  or  a  synod,"  etc. 
The  prominence  of  the  man  can  be  discerned  through- 


§  22,^  walthhr's  i:mini:n'ck.  273 

out  the  development  of  tlie  Missouri  Synod.  Spaeth 
gives  a  correct  estimate  of  his  talents  when  he  says  : 
"Continued  doctrinal  discussions  at  synods  and  con- 
ferences, yes,  even  at  the  congregational  meetings, 
regular  parish  visitations,  careful  establishment  of 
parochial  schools,  co-operated,  not  only  toward  the 
creation  of  a  common  synodical  spirit,  but  also  toward 
its  powerful  j)roi);4jation  in  new  territory.  Walther's 
wise  and  steady  leadership  had  a  magnetic  effect, 
conquering,  wiiuiiuc^;-  and  assimilating  antagonistic  ele- 
ments." -"'' 

More  than  most  other  men  in  the  history  of  the 
Church.  Walther  knew  how  to  impress  his  mind 
upon  his  followers.  The  imposing  unity  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod,  together  with  its  size  (for  it  soon  grew 
to  be  the  largest  Lutheran  synod),  exerted  a  mighty 
influence  everywhere,  and  especially  in  the  Eastern 
synods  strengthened  the  confessional  consciousness 
which  had  already  awakened  from  its  slumber. 

6.     Rupture  With  Loehe. 

Soon  after  the  founding  of  the  Missouri  Synod, 
disagreement  with  Loehe  became  more  and  more  ap- 
parent. I,oehe  considered  the  organization  too  demo- 
cratic. He  desired  a  greater  influence  of  the  min- 
isters in  church  matters  than  seemed  to  be  provided 
for.  The  experiences  of  his  followers  among  the 
unruly  congregations  of  Ohio  and  Indiana  fdled  him 
with  fear,  lest  unworthy  laymen  might  gain  con- 
trol by  means  of  a  majority  of  votes  on  all  rjue^tion-. 
Walther's    theory    of    the    minlaterial    office,    derived 


Hauck,   R.    E  .   1;,1'V. 
18 


274  '1^"-    ^nSSOlTRl   SYNOJX  §    22," 

from  the  principle  of  the  universal  priesthood,  was 
criticised  by  him.     Finally,  upon  the  urgent  request 
of  the  Franconian  congregations,  it  was  decided  that 
President   Wyneken   and   Professor   Walther   should 
go  to  Germany  (1857),  to  settle  these  diflerences  by 
a  personal  interview.     Walther  stated  to  Loehe  that 
he  was  perfectly  satisfied  with  his  explanations ;    he 
hoped,  however,  to  convince  his   protagonist  by  his 
book,  then  being  pubHshed,  on  the  church  and  the 
ministry.    Loehe,  to  show  his  agreement  in  essentials, 
decided   to    establish   a  teachers'   training   school   at 
Saginaw    (^by  sending  Grossmann  and  a   number  of 
students)  in  the  interest  of  the  synod,  as  he  had  done 
with  the  theological  seminary  at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
But   he   continued  to   disagree   with   Walther's   doc- 
trine of  the  ministry,  even  after  the  publication  of 
Walther's  book,  and  thus  at  length  the  rupture  took 
place.    In  1853,  after  a  conference  in  Michigan,  Loehe 
was  asked  by  Wyneken,  then  president  of  the  synod, 
to  give  up  his  work  at  Saginaw.    As  harmonious  co- 
operation had  become  impossible,  Loehe  was  forced 
to   seek   for  himself  and  his    followers   a   new   field 
of  work.     Only  two  of  his  disciples  (Grossmann  and 
Deindoerfer)   remained  with  him.     They  formed  the 
Iowa  Synod  (§  29). 

7.  Relations  to  Other  Synods. 
a.  The  Iowa  Synod.  The  conflict  with  Loehe  and 
the  exodus  of  Grossmann  and  Deindoerfer  created  an 
early  antagonism  between  the  Missouri  and  Iowa 
Synods.  See  history  of  Iowa  Synod  (§  29).  Soon 
a    doctrinal    controversy   arose   which   has   not   been 


§    22."  Kri'TlRK   WITH    LOKHF..  275 

settled  even  at  the  present  date.  We  shall  speak  of 
it  further  in  §  23,  II. 

1>.  The  Buffalo  Synod.  The  principles  of  Grabau. 
founder  of  the  ButValo  Synod,  proposed  in  a  "pastoral 
letter"  (§  23,  30).  were  vigorously  opposed  by  Wal- 
ther,  who  had  become  aware  of  their  dangerous  con- 
sequences by  the  Stephanist  confusion.  Of  this  con- 
troversy we  shall  speak  in  §  23.  The  Missouri  Synod 
gained  much  in  the  contention,  for,  after  a  public  dis- 
cussion in  1866  with  the  Grabau  party,  twelve  pas- 
tors ='"  of  the  BuflFalo  Synod  joined  Missouri.  See 
also  history  of  the  Buffalo  Synod,  §  30. 

c.  The  General  Council.  In  1866  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  after  separating  from  the  General  Synod, 
called  a  conference  at  Reading,  Pa.,  to  discuss  a 
possible  union  of  all  true  Lutherans.  To  this  meet- 
ing Missouri  also  sent  delegates,  who  advised  that 
an  organization  should  not  immediately  be  effected, 
but  that  free  conferences  should  be  arranged  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  points  of  difference  and 
agreement  among  the  various  synods.  Their  advice 
not  being  heeded,  the  Missouri  delegates  withdrew, 
and  no  representatives  of  Missouri  appeared  at  the 
next  convention  at  Fort  Wayne  in  1867  (see  §  17.  3). 

In  this  conneoti(ni  we  might  add  a  word  concern- 
ing the  party  of  protest  in  the  New  York  Minis- 
tcrium.  Says  Professor  L.  Fuerbringer :  "Several 
pastors  and  congregations  oi  New  York  ^nd  vicinity 
(between  1875  and  1880)  protested  against  synodical 
rule  as  applied  to  congregations.     This  was  the  time 


-'■  .\mong   the»«,   C.    llochstelter,    who   wrote   a   history    of   the    Mis- 
souri  Synod. 


276  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    22/ 

when  Sieker  was  called  to  St.  Matthew's  Church  of 
New  York,  and,  with  A.  E.  Frey  of  Brooklyn,  as- 
sumed leadership  in  this  revolt.  The  party  founded 
a  paper,  'Zeuge  der  Wahrheit,'  which  existed  for 
some  time.  The  matter  ended  with  the  secession  of 
several  ministers :  Frey,  Halfman  (not  Sieker,  who 
never  belonged),  and  later  their  congregations,  St. 
Matthew's,  Frey's,  etc.  These  ministers  and  their 
congregations  had  been  influential." 

d.  The  absorption  of  the  Illinois  Synod.  The  Illi- 
nois Synod,  at  first  a  part  of  the  General  Synod  (§ 
7,  4)  and  later  of  the  General  Council  (§  17,  1,  3), 
left  the  Council  in  1870,  and  united  with  the  Synodical 
Conference.  Eventually  (1880)  it  was  absorbed  by 
the  Missouri  Synod.  This  gave  Missouri  a  strong- 
hold in  Illinois,  where  it  has  to-day  a  Northern,  a 
Southern  and  a  Central  Synod,  with  more  than  300 
pastors. 

e.  Organization  of  the  Synodical  Conference.  As 
has  been  said,  the  Missouri  Synod  declined  to  take 
part  in  the  organization  of  the  General  Council  (§ 
17,  3).  Ohio  had  also  withdrawn.  In  1868  the  Wis- 
consin Synod  also  stepped  out.  The  Minnesota  Synod 
seemed  to  be  ready  to  do  the  same.  All  of  them 
wanted  a  declaration  on  the  subject  of  church-fellow- 
ship, which  the  General  Council,  on  account  of  its 
Eastern  composition,  was  not  prepared  to  give  (see 
§  18).  These  synods,  therefore,  opened  negotiations 
with  Missouri.  In  1871  a  convention  took  place  at 
Chicago,  to  which  Missouri,  Wisconsin,  Ohio  and 
the  Norwegian  Synods  (§  32,  III,  2)  sent  delegates. 
At   this   time  the  organization   of  a   Synodical  Con- 


§    22,"  RELATIONS  TO  UTIltK  SYNODS.  277 

ference  was  sugg^csted.  At  a  later  conference  at 
Fort  Wayne,  to  which  the  Minnesota  and  Illinois 
Synods  also  sent  delegates,  the  matter  was  further 
discussed,  culminating  in  the  formation  of  the  Synodi- 
cal  Conference,  the  largest  body  of  Lutherans  in 
America.  Its  first  regular  convention  took  place 
at  Milwaukee  in  1872.  Every  synod  of  less  than  80 
pastors  is  represented  by  two  pastors  and  two  lay- 
men ;  for  every  additional  40  pastors  there  is  one 
clerical  and  one  lay  delegate.  From  1872  to  1879 
it  held  annual  conventions.  Since  1879  it  has  been 
meeting  every  two  years.  It  is  merely  an  advisory 
body,  and  is  chiefly  concerned  with  questions  of  doc- 
trine. -^^ 

Dr.  Walther  planned  that  State  Synods  should  be 
formed  out  of  all  synods,  which  were  expected  to 
maintain  their  own  colleges,  and  also  to  support  one 
grand  central  seminary  with  a  tri-linguistic  (German, 
English.  Norwegian)  faculty  and  one  teachers'  sem- 
inary. Ohio  was  prepared  to  give  up  its  seminary, 
even  though  the  organization  of  state  synods  was 
not  carried  out ;  Minnesota  also  consented.  But 
Wisconsin  was  radically  opposed  to  the  plan,  called 
its  students  from  St.  Louis,  and  founded  its  own 
seminary  at  Milwaukee,  Wis.  (now  in  Wauwatosa, 
near  Milwaukee).  In  1914  the  plan  was  again  con- 
sidered by  the  Synods  of  Missouri  and  Wisconsin. 

f.  Withdrawal  of  the  Ohio  and  Norwegian  Synods. 
In  1881  the  Ohio  Synod  witlidrew  from  the  Synodical 
Conference.     The   finest  ion   of  predestination   having 

^'  A  mission  among  negroes  is  pirt  of  the  practical  work,  under- 
taken in  corr.mop. 


278  THE   MISSOURI  SYNOD,  §    22/ 

arisen,  the  delegates  of  Missouri  to  the  Synodical 
Conference  were  instructed  not  to  co-operate  with 
Stellhorn  and  the  Ohio  delegates.  See  the  history 
of  the  Ohio  Synod  and  the  biography  of  Allwardt 
(§  28,  conclusion).  Pastors  A.  Allwardt  and  H.  Ernst, 
with  a  small  number  of  adherents,  finally  left  Mis- 
souri and  joined  Ohio.  The  Norwegians,  too,  whose 
ministers  were  divided  on  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion, separated  in  1883  from  the  Synodical  Conference, 
hoping  in  this  way  to  reach  a  solution  of  the  problem 
more  quickly.  ^"  But  in  spite  of  these  withdrawals, 
the  Synodical  Conference,  and  especially  the  Missouri 
Synod,  grew  rapidly,  almost  doubling  its  membership 
from  1878  to  1888. 

Note  1.  The  statistics  of  1914  give  to  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  2282  pastors,  1746  congregations  directly 
connected  with  it,  and  1232  independents ;  a  total  of 
1,283,720  communicants.  These  are  comprised  in  15 
districts  scattered  throughout  the  country.  Missouri 
has  done  work  in  Brazil  since  1870,  and  lately  also 
in  Argentine.  In  1904  this  district  formed  a  special 
South  American  organization. 

Note  2.  In  Germany  (since  1876)  there  exists 
the  "Evangelisch=Lutherische  Freikirche  von  Sach- 
sen;"  there  is  also  a  Missouri  Synod  in  Australia. 
But  neither  of  them  is  organically  connected  with 
the  Missouri  Synod  of  America. 


-'^-  An  actual  separation  did  not  take  place  until  1887,  when  the 
opponents  of  the  Missouri  doctrine  of  predestination  founded  a  semi- 
nary at  Northfield,  Minn.,  under  the  leadership  of  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt, 
the    vigorous   protagonist   of   Dr.   Walther. 


§    23,1  MISSOGKI    AND    UUIKALO.  ^79 

§  23.     Doctrinal  Controversies  of  MbsourL* 

I.     MISSOURI  AND  BUFFALO. 

In  undertaking  to  describe  the  doctrinal  positions  and 
consequent  struggles  between  the  Buffalo  and  Missouri 
Synods,  we  are  confronted  by  a  number  of  difficulties.  In 
order  to  arrive  at  a  fair  judgment  we  must  consider  four 
important  facts:  1)  that  Grabau  modified  his  views  and 
reduced  his  claims;  2)  that,  while  Grabau  as  "Senior  Min- 
isterii"  had  almost  unlimited  influence  and  spoke  in  an 
authoritative  manner,  not  every  word  he  said  is  to  be 
charged  to  the  synod;  3)  that  a  development  has  taken 
place  within  the  Buffalo  Synod,  as  Dr.  Stellhorn  has  pointed 
out,  so  that  today  it  is  closely  related  in  its  positions  to 
other  synods;  4)  that  many  statements,  attributed  to  the 
dogmatic  position  of  the  Buffalo  Synod,  must  be  looked 
upon  as  controversial  quibbles  or  incomplete  quotations. 

It  is  no  easy  task  to  portray  a  development  of  fifty 
years  in  a  few  statements.  Regarding  these  doctrinal  con- 
troversies we  can  consider  only  the  period  when  the  Buf- 
falo Synod  held  a  prominent  place  in  the  American  Lu- 
theran Church,  that  is.  until  1866.  We  have  in  mind  the 
position  of  Grabau  as  opposed  by  the  Missouri  Synod. 

The  cause  of  this  struggle  was  a  "Pastoral  Let- 
ter," written  by  Grabau,  in  which  pastorless  congre- 
gations were  warned  against  itinerant  preachers  (of 
whom  there  were  many  at  that  time),  since  they  were 
not  "properly  called."  This  letter,  written  in  1840, 
five  years  before  the  organization  of  the  Missouri 
Synod,  together  with  writings  of  a  later  date,  ex- 
plicitly expresses  the  views  of  Grabau  concerning 
the  Church  and  the  ministry.  His  ideas  were  as 
follows :  By  the  grace  of  God  we  have  come  to  this 
country  as  a  part  of  the  true  Church.     It  is  essential 


•This  section  is  .i  contribution  by  the  Rev.   Prof.   Ceo.  J.   Fritschel. 
See  our  remarks  in  the  preface  of  this  book. 


280  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF   MISSOURI.         §    23,1/ 

that  a  free  Church  should  not  degenerate  into  a  con- 
dition of  ecclesiastical  anarchy  through  a  misinter- 
pretation of  the  fourteenth  article  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  It  is  required  of  a  properly  called  min- 
ister that  he  should  have  sufficient  training  for  this 
office ;  that  he  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that 
he  can  successfully  use  his  training;  that  he  be  ex- 
amined and  recommended  by  worthy  and  experienced 
ministers;  that  he  be  publicly  ordained  and  installed 
in  the  congregations  which  he  is  to  serve.  The  neces- 
sity of  a  regular  call  is  attested  by  the  words  of 
the  apostles,  the  example  of  Christ,  and  the  con- 
sideration that  the  Church  should  have  evidence  of 
the  worthy  character  of  the  laborers  in  its  service. 
Men  who  arbitrarily  pose  as  ministers  have  no  real 
call,  and  cannot  properly  absolve  from  sin ;  and  when 
they  administer  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  are  merely 
distributing  bread  and  wine,  because  Christ  will  recog- 
nize only  his  institution  and  not  human  perversions 
of  his  established  order. 

1.     The  Doctrine  of   the  Church. 

Grabau's  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  peculiar.  He 
over-emphasizes  its  visibility.  The  only  holy  Chris- 
tian Church  spoken  of  in  the  Apostle's  Creed  is,  ac- 
cording to  Grabau,  the  visible  congregation  of  those 
who  have  the  pure  Word  and  Sacraments.  This  can 
be  said  only  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  for  that 
reason  is  God's  true  Church.  Outside  of  it  there  are 
only  mobs  and  sects,  but  no  church.  In  these  masses 
there  are,  no  doubt,  true  believers  who,  according  to 
their  inner  life,  belong  to  the  Lutheran  Church  ;  but 
these  would  unite  with  the  Lutheran  Church,  if  they 


§    2T,,l,^  MISSOURI  AND  HLTFALO.  28l 

would  come  in  contact  with  it.  But  none  can  be  as- 
sured of  salvation  unless  actually  connected  with  the 
true  Church.     Says  Grabau : 

"Our  symbols  teach  and  confess  that  there  will 
always  be  and  remain  on  earth  a  holy  Christian 
Church,  consisting  of  the  visible  congregation  of 
believers,  with  whom  the  Word  is  preached  in  its 
purity  and  among  whom  the  sacraments  are  ad- 
ministered according  to  Christ's  institution."  ^'^  He 
rejects  the  doctrine  that  "even  where  the  Word  and 
the  Sacraments  are  not  altogether  pure,  a  holy  Church 
of  the  elect  is  gathered,  as  long  as  the  Word  and  Sac- 
raments, though  obscured,  are  not  altogether  denied, 
but  remain  in  essense."  ^^* 

His  interpretation  of  the  seventh  article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  as  follows:  "The  Church  is  that  (visible) 
congregation  of  the  saints  (over  against  other  congrega- 
tions) in  which  (over  against  other  congregations)  the 
gospel  is  correctly  taught,"  etc.  That  the  interpretation  of 
the  relative  "in  which,"  so  essential  to  Grabau's  theory,  is 
insufficient  appears  in  the  amplification  of  the  article  as 
contained  in  the  Apology,  in  which  the  subordinate  clause 
is  altogether  lacking.  There  it  is  stated  that  the  true 
Church  consists  of  all  those  who  truly  believe  the  gospel 
and  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost.^*  The  relative  clause  in 
question  might  be  paraphrased  (as  is  done  in  the  Latin 
relative  sentence  of  Article  XII  and  in  other  places)  as 
meaning,"  and  among  whom  (the  saints)  the  gospel  is  cor- 
rectly taught,"  etc. 

Walther,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted  that  the 
Church  is  essentially  inz'isiblr,  and  consists  of  all 
the  faithful  in  whatsoever  denomination.    Fellowship 

*•*  Synodical    Report,   p.    17, 

^*  Idem,  p.  20. 

'*«•  Mueller,  p.  158,  28. 


282  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF   MISSOURI.         §    23. 1," 

with  the  Church  invisible  is  necessary  to  salvation. 
The  declaration  that  the  Word  and  Sacrament  are 
the  sole  criteria  of  the  Church  and  do  not  pertain  to 
the  essence  thereof,  Walther  abandoned  during  his 
colloquium  with  the  Buffalo  pastors  (1866). 

2.     The  Doctrine  of  the  Ministerial  Office. 

As  appears  from  the  "Pastoral  Letter"  just  men- 
tioned, Grabau  put  great  emphasis  on  being  in  ac- 
cord v^^ith  the  old  church  rules  of  Prussia.  Those 
who  are  not  called  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
Church,  have  neither  right  nor  power  to  officiate ; 
the  Lord's  Supper,  given  by  them,  is  mere  bread  and 
wine.  ^^®  Essential  to  the  ministerial  office  is  not 
only  an  examination,  but  a  proper  call  (under  the 
auspices,  or,  at  least,  with  the  consent  of  the  clergy) 
by  the  congregation,  and  finally,  according  to  the  di- 
vine rule,  an  ordination,  which  can  only  be  per- 
formed by  the  ministry.  Wherever  there  is  wilful 
opposition  to  the  ministers,  the  legitimacy  of  the 
pastoral  office  becomes  doubtful. 

Walther*s  View.  Walther  originally  shared  Gra- 
bau's  views.  But  having  seen  their  fatal  conse- 
quences in  the  confusion  caused  by  Stephan,  and 
having  been  convinced,  especially  by  the  lawyer 
Vehse,  from  Luther's  writings,  that  they  were  erron- 
eous, he  defended  his  new  position  against  Grabau 
so  much  more  emphatically.  He  says :  "Every  Chris- 
tian as  a  priest  of  God  has :  a)  the  office  of  the  Word, 
b)  to  baptize,  c)  to  bless  and  consecrate  the  holy 
bread  and  wine,  d)  to  retain  sins  and  to  remit  them, 


^' Later  on  this  statement  was  expressly  repudiated  by  the  Buffalo 
Synod. 


§    23.1."  MISSOURI   AM)  HUFFALO.  2S3 

e)  to  offer  sacrifice,  f)  to  pray  for  others,  g)  to 
pass  judgment  on  doctrines.  But  as  all  Christians  can- 
not simultaneously  discharge  these  offices,  God  has 
commanded  that  the  many  spiritual  priests  choose 
one  among  tliem  as  pastor,  who,  as  a  representative 
of  the  whole  congregation,  performs  the  ministerial 
rites.  The  ministerial  office  is  therefore  the  spiritual 
priesthood  of  all  members  transferred  to  an  indi- 
vidual. This  transfer  takes  place  in  the  call  of  the 
congregation.  Ordination  is  merely  an  ecclesiastical 
rite ;  it  is  altogether  a  human  institution,  and  serves 
only  as  a  public  confirmation  of  the  transference  by 
the  congregational  call."  -^' 

3.     Other  Differences. 

Further  disagreements  between  Grabau  and  Mis- 
souri were  the  natural  outgrowth  of  this  funda- 
mental difference.  According  to  GreJbau,  the  congre- 
gation has  merely  the  right  to  exhort  the  sinner ; 
the  pastor  alone  has  authority  to  excommunicate. 
According  to  Missouri,  the  office  of  the  keys  belongs 
to  the  congregation  as  such,  but  is  administered  by 
it  through  the  pastor.  Grabau  found  the  ideal  form 
of  the  Church  in  the  State  Church,  which  means  the 
innermost  union  and  interrelation  of  both.  In  a  Free 
Church    he    assigns    ultimate    authority,    not    to    the 


"•It  is  tri;e,  Luther,  in  writin?  to  the  Bohemians,  advises  them 
to  choose  and  ordain  their  own  ministers,  conceding  to  them  this  ri^rht 
on  the  basis  of  the  spiritual  priesthood.  He  availed  himself  of  this 
privilege  when  he  claimed  the  right  of  ordination  hitherto  vested  only 
in  the  bishops.  But  this  method  was  necessitated  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  time  (see  Smalcald  Art.,  p.  341,  60-72,  79).  That  Luther's  letter 
to  the  Bohemians  presents  only  one  side  of  his  views  may  be  seen 
from  what  he  writes  at  other  places  concerning  self-appointed  spiritual 
advisers. 


284  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF   MISSOURI.      §    23, 11,^ 

congregation,  but  to  the  synod.  Missouri  considers 
the  Free  Church  the  ideal  form  and  the  congregation 
the  highest  tribunal  and  the  final  judicial  authority 
within  the  Church.  The  congregation  must  examine 
the  doctrine,  and  it  alone  must  depose  a  pastor  whose 
life  or  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God. 
Grabau  holds  that  the  congregations  must  be  obedient 
to  the  ministers  in  all  demands  not  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God.  Missouri  grants  power  to  the  min- 
ister only  in  matters  directly  demanded  by  the  Word 
of  God.  All  other  things  are  adiaphora,  in  which  the 
pastor  can  merely  advise,  but  not  demand. 

II.    MISSOURI,  LOEHE  AND  THE  IOWA  SYNOD. 

The  controversy  between  Missouri  and  Loehe  and  the 
Iowa  Synod  extends  through  many  years  and  pertains  to 
quite  a  number  of  questions  more  or  less  inter-related. 
Their  chronological  order  was  as  follows:  1.  the  Church 
and  the  ministerial  office  (Walther  and  Loehe) ;  2.  Chiliasm 
and  Anti-Christ;  3.  the  Confessions  and  "open  questions;" 
4.  Sunday;  5.  usury  and  universal  justification ;  6.  finally, 
predestination  and  conversion.  The  principal  difference 
regards  the  matter  of  the  confessions  and  "open  questions". 
Both  Iowa  and  Missouri  have  modified  their  views  during 
this  long  struggle;  we  shall  point  out  these  modifications 
at  the  proper  places.  We  shall  deal  with  the  above-named 
topics  in  the  order  given. 

1.     Attitude  Toward  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confessions. 

When  the  Iowa  Synod  was  organized,  its  po- 
sition was  thus  defined :  "The  synod  accepts  all  the 
confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church." 
This  brief  sentence  contains  in  substance  everything 
which,  later  on,  was  stated  in  the  confessional  para- 
graph enumerating  by  name  the  different  confessional 


§    -?3'1'-'       MlsSlirUI.    LOI.HF.    .\\\>    i.iU'A    SVN'ijD.  2S5 

books.  It  continues:  "It  tU)cs  so  because  it  con- 
siders all  the  symhctjical  decisions  cijiucniing  con- 
troversies preceding  the  time  of  the  Reformation  and 
coincident  with  it  as  being  in  harmony  with  the  Word 
of  God."  With  this  must  be  compared  the  form  of 
obligation  used  from  the  very  l)eginning  at  ordina- 
tion, both  in  the  Missouri  Syncjd  and  in  that  of  Iowa, 
and  which  was  afterwards  substituted  for  the  above 
phrase,  viz. :  "as  the  pure  and  adulterated  declaration 
and  interpretation  of  the  divine  Word  and  will."  By 
this  declaration  the  ambiguous  "quatenus"  was  re- 
jected and  the  "quia"  was  confessed. 

The  opposition  to  other  synods  becomes  evident 
in  the  next  clause:  "Since  there  are,  however,  various 
tendencies  within  the  Lutheran  Church,  it  takes  its 
position  with  tliat  tendency  which  strives  for  a  greater 
perfection  of  the  Lutiieran  Cinirch  on  the  way  of 
the  confessions  and  guided  by  the  Word  of  God." 
By  this  declaration  the  Iowa  Synod,  on  the  one  hand, 
declared  its  opposition  to  the  General  Synod,  in  which 
at  that  time  the  un-Lutheran  elements  had  the  up- 
per hand.  On  the  other  hand,  it  also  declared  its 
opposition  to  Missouri,  which  rejected  an  ai^peal  from 
the  confessions  to  the  Word  of  Goil.  Missouri  iuul 
declared  in  an  official  letter:  "Lutherans  as  such 
must  not  interpret  the  confessions  in  the  light  of 
the  Bible,  but  must  interpret  the  Bible  according  to 
the  confessions."  -'*     Iowa  considered  the  position  of 


^' See  "Lutheraner,"  Vol.  X,  p.  193:  "If  you  finally  demand  from 
us  that  we  should  interpret  our  noble  confessions  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  we  cannot  as  good  Lutherans  comply  with  such  a  demand: 
in  fact,  we  are  surprised  that  you  as  Lutherans  should  ask  for  such  a 
thing:  for  as  Lutherans  we  already  possess  in  our  confessions  the 
pure   sense   and   unadulterated   interpretation  of   the   divine    Word.     And 


286  DOCTK.    CONTKOVlCRSlliS   OF    MISSOURI.      §    23,11/ 

Missouri  as  a  "dogmatizing"  tendency,  and  declared 
that  it  represented  "the  exegetical  tendency"  held  by 
Loehe  and  other  European  scholars  of  the  confes- 
sional side.  It  was  the  intention  to  lay  greater  stress 
upon  immediate  proof  from  the  Scripture  than  was 
done  by  Missouri.  The  character  of  the  controverted 
questions  was  the  reason  why  Iowa  always  appealed 
to  the  Bible,  because  the  confessions  contained  no 
decision  in  regard  to  these  questions.  Missouri,  on 
the  other  hand,  tried  to  ascribe  its  views  (which  had 
been  gleaned  eclectically  from  the  great  teachers  of 
former  ages)  to  the  confessions.  To  this  Iowa  ob- 
jected, claiming  that  the  Confessions  must  be  under- 
stood in  their  historical  sense.  Soon  the  discussion 
turned  to  the  limits  of  confessional  authority. 

The  position  of  Missouri  at  that  time  is  described 
very  correctly  by  theologians  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod 
in  this  way : 

"When  Dr.  Walther  took  charge  of  church  affairs 
in  America,  it  was  of  supreme  importance  that  true 
Lutheranism  should  be  defined  against  'American  Lu- 
theranism'  and  confessional  unionism.  It  was  neces- 
sary that  as  large  a  number  of  ministers  as  possible 
be  trained  in  true  loyalty  to  the  Lutheran  confes- 
sions. Lutheran  pastors  and  congregations  every- 
where needed  to  be  strengthened  in  their  Lutheran- 
ism.  This  could  be  done  in  no  other  way  than  by 
proving  with  absolute  clearness  from  the  writings  of 
Lutheran  dogmaticians,  1)  what  the  true  Lutheran 
doctrine   is ;    2)    it   is   contained   in   our   confessions. 


we  would  have  to  refer  to  the  Scriptures  only  in  case  of  argumein 
with  non-Lutherans,  who  still  might  doubt  the  absolute  scripturalness 
of  our  confessions,  or  in  case  that  any  interpretation  of  the  confessions 
were   unintelligible;  but   this   is   not  the  case." 


§    23.11.*       MISSOURI,    LOKHK    AND    IOWA    SYNOD.  jS" 

To    this    task    Walthcr    devoted    his    whole    pcnius, 
strengfth  and  labor.    This  explains  why  the  old  maga- 
zines on  every  question  are   filled   with  proofs    from 
the  sources,  and  why  the  synodical  reports  are  almost 
entirely  made  up  of  compilations  of  quotations  from 
the  fathers.     Wallher  pursued  this  method   (at  that 
time  the  only  practical  one),  but  his  pupils  also  ad- 
hered to  it.     It  was  considered  the  proper  treatment 
of  a  question,  even  after  the  fight  against  false  Lu- 
theranism    had    long   been    decided,   to   refer   to   the 
declarations  of  ancient  scholars.     They  stood,  indeed, 
upon  scriptural  ground  in  representing  this  'dogmatic 
tendency,'    into    which    they    had    drifted    under    the 
stress  of  time.     But  it  can  be  denied  just  as  little 
that  the  Scripture  proof  was  taken  not  directly  from 
the    source,   but    from   the   writings    of   the    fathers. 
Thus    (without  being  aware  of  it)   they  got   into  a 
rut ;  a  kind  of  intellectual  crystallization  developed, 
for  such  is  always  the  consequence  of  traditionalistic 
dogmatics.      This    does    not    necessarily   mean   intel- 
lectual stagnation.    Quite  contrariwise !    But  one  could 
not    tolerate    it   that    a    matter   was   presented   in   a 
way  which  in  any  respect  differed  from  the  customary 
method.     Those  pursuing  original  methods  were  sus- 
pected of  heretical  tendencies.     A  number  of  forms, 
phrases,    arguments    and    methods    were    becoming 
stereotyped.     A  certain  legalistic  type  of  orthodoxy 
was  developed,  which  very  easily  became  unjust  over 
against    opponents.      .\nd   there    was   an   absence   of 
that  spirit  of  love  and  patience  which  considers  only 
the  matter,  even  if  the  form  is  not  perfect.     In  this 
peculiar  spirit  several  generations  grew  up.     But  in 
the  controversy  concerning  predestination   Hoeneckc 


288  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES   OF   MISSOURI.      §    23,11,' 

and  Stoeckhardt  blazed  a  new  trail.  An  "exegetical 
tendency"  asserted  itself,  which,  while  revering  the 
fathers  of  the  Church,  goes  back  directly  to  the 
Scriptures.  And  this  immediate  investigation  of  the 
Scriptures  creates  another,  a  milder,  more  charitable, 
more  tolerant  spirit."  "'^^ 

Later  on  Missouri  indeed  abandoned  this  line  of 
attack  against  Iowa,  and  declared  that  by  the  "open 
questions"  the  latter  had  transferred  authority  be- 
longing to  the  Bible  alone  to  the  Church.  Iowa  vigor- 
ously denied  this  charge. ^^** 

2.     Altitude  Towards  the  Confessions. 

Grabau  asserted  in  his  discussions  with  Iowa  that 
the  confessional  obligations  covered  every  detail  in 
the  confessions  (including  even  etymological  explana- 
tions, c.  g.,  that  the  word  "God"  is  derived  from 
"good").  Walther  did  not  go  that  far.  He  declared 
that  "all  doctrinal  developments,  contained  in  the 
confessions,  by  their  very  insertion  into  the  confes- 
sions, had  become  a  part  of  the  Church's  confession," 
and  that  the  confessional  obligation  included  all  doc- 


^'This  characteristic  is  found  in  the  Wisconsin  "Quartalschrift," 
in  a  series  of  articles  signed  by  Professors  Koehler,  Augustus  Picper 
and   Director  Schaller. 

""  "Nothing  is  to  be  treated  as  an  open  question  which  God  has 
clearly  answered  in  His  Word.  Whether  a  doctrinal  question  has  been 
treated  by  the  Symbolical  Books  is  not  decisive,  but  whether  the  answer 
is  clearly  stated  in  the  Scriptures.  Matters  not  contained  in  the  Bible 
have  no  place  in  the  Church."  (See  Central  District,  13,  p.  23;  also 
Grosse,  p.  24.)  "It  is  a  grave  aberration  of  Lutheran  theologians  to 
substitute  for  the  self-interpretative  Scriptures  the  authority  of  the 
Church.  .  .  .  The  demand  made  by  the  defenders  of  open  questions 
is  sacrilegious;  for  it  really  means  equal  claims  in  the  church  for  the 
contradiction  of  the  heavenly  truth  as  for  the  truth  itself.  Of  doc- 
trines, radically  contradictory  to  each  other,  only  one  can  be  correct. 
The  other  must  be  false"    ("Lehre  und  Vehre,"  in  Grosse,  p  24). 


§    23.11."       MISSOfRI.    LOEHK   AND    IOWA   SVNOD.  2<^ 

trincs  contained  in  any  way  in  the  symbols,  no  matter 
whether  they  are  assertions  given  ex  profes«o  or 
casual  references.  *-^  Over  against  this  theory  Iowa 
made  two  claims :  In  the  first  place  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  that  which  is  binding  and  that  which 
is  not  binding  in  the  Symbolical  Books ;  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  as  the  dogmaticians  have  already  declared, 
only  those  statements  are  binding  which  were  meant 
to  be  of  symbolical  significance,  and  not  those  state- 
ments which  are  merely  introduced  to  amplify,  to 
prove  or  to  interpret.  Here  we  find  with  Iowa,  then, 
two  widely  different  factors:  1)  The  principle  and 
the  rule  are  laid  down,  that  a  distinction  must  be 
made  between  parts  that  are  obligatory  and  those 
that  arc  not  obligatory ;  2)  a  theory  (borrowed  from 
the  orthodox  dogmaticians)  is  approved  how  this  dis- 
tinction is  to  be  made.  The  distinction  between  the 
former  principle  and  the  latter  theory  must  be  un- 
derstood in  order  to  do  justice  to  Iowa. 

Influenced  by  opinions  obtained  by  request  from 
Tuiropean  Lutherans  (especially  those  of  Muenkel  and 
Dorpat).  the  synod  at  its  Toledo  meeting  C1867)  cor- 
rected the  assertions  in  such  a  wav  as  still  to  main- 


^*  "No  matter  what  position  any  doctrine  may  hold  in  the  doc- 
trinal system  of  the  Lutheran  Chiinh,  no  mattrr  in  what  form  it  may 
be  prrsentcd,  whether  treated  ex  professo  or  as  a  casual  remark,  it  is 
part  of  the  obligation  incurred  by  the  subscriber;  nothing  is  exempted, 
nothing  can  be  excluded"  ("Lutheraner,"  1R?8,  p.  201).  Grossmann: 
"When  you  subscribe  to  the  confessions,  were  you  aware  of  the  fact 
that  they  declared  the  permanent  virginity  of  Mary?"  Walthcr:  "Yes, 
I  can  say  so  in  the  presence  of  God."  Grossman:  "  Do  you  still  believe 
this  to  be  true  doctrine?"  Walther:  "Yes,  I  can  say  so  in  the 
presence  of  God."  Grossmann:  "What  are  your  reasons  for  consider- 
ing this  a  true  presentation?"  Walther:  "Pardon  me,  but  you  have 
no  right  to  ask  this  question."  (Beyer,  "Colloquium  of  Milwaukee," 
p.    *3    sq.) 

19 


290  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES   OF   MISSOURI.      §    23,11,^ 

tain  the  distinction  in  the  symbols  between  that  which 
is  binding  and  that  which  is  not.  But  it  here  expressly 
repudiated  the  theory  how  this  is  to  be  done,  on  the 
ground  that  a  synod  has  no  business  to  propose  the- 
ories. However,  it  was  considered  proper  that  the 
synod  should  pass  judgment,  whenever  a  particular 
case  was  submitted  to  it  for  adjudication,  to  declare 
whether  this  was  an  essential  or  non-essential  part. 
At  the  colloquy  held  soon  afterwards  at  Milwaukee, 
an  agreement  was  reached  whereby  all  doctrines  of 
faith  in  the  confessions,  but  not  the  "theologumena" 
were  declared  obligatory.  In  spite  of  this  agreement 
in  principle,  no  unity  was  attained,  as  the  question 
remained  unsettled  into  which  class  the  controverted 
points  had  to  be  placed. 

3.     "Open  Questions." 

Iowa,  from  the  very  beginning,  acted  according 
to  the  principle  that  in  matters  of  faith  it  is  essential 
to  agree  in  case  church-fellowship  is  to  take  place, 
but  that  doctrinal  points,  which  are  not  doctrines  of 
faith,  must  not  affect  fellowship  of  faith  and  church- 
fellowship.  They  must  be  considered  "open  ques- 
tions." By  this  not  a  theory  but  a  general  prin- 
ciple concerning  the  treatment  of  differences  within 
the  Church  in  regard  to  church-fellowship  is  laid 
down.  Missouri  rejected  this  distinction,  and  de- 
manded complete  agreement  and  unity  concerning 
every  doctrine  taken  from  the  Scriptures.  Such  unity 
was  declared  to  be  an  absolute  prerequisite  for 
church-fellowship.  One  and  only  one  interpretation 
could  be  permitted  by  the  Church,  lest  she  prove  dis- 
loyal to  the  Word  of  God  by  tolerating  two  interpre- 


§    23.11."*       MlSSoLkl.    LOKni£   AM)    IOWA    S^  NOI).  29I 

tations  at  tlie  same  time.  The  principle  tiiat  tliere 
are  such  "open  questions"  was  described  "as  a  most 
dangerous  (because  a  most  subtle  and  most  dis- 
guised) unionistic  poison,  driving  congregations  into 
the  grasp  of  scepticism  and  infidelity."  Iowa,  how- 
ever, insisted  that  this  principle  had  always  been  a 
confessional  declaration  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  "- 
and  that  the  Lutheran  Church  had  always  acted  ac- 
cording to  this  principle.  Another  practice  would  end 
in  sectarianism,  and  would  be  un-Lutheran,  since  it 
was  just  as  wrong  to  add  to  the  confessions  as  it  was 
to  detract   from  them.  -- ' 

Since  the  opponents  tried  to  connect  ideas  re- 
jected by  Iowa  with  the  phrase  "open  questions," 
Iowa  declared  at  Milwaukee:  "By  open  questions 
we  do  not  mean  such  doctrines  as  concern  the  founda- 
tion of  faith,  or  such  as  are  plainly  and  unmistakably 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  such  doctrines  as  are 
either  not  taught  at  all  or  are  not  decided  in  a  clear 
and  unmistakable  manner  in  the  Scriptures  and  con- 
cerning which  therefore  no  consensus  has  developed 
within  the  Church.  In  case  a  dilTerence  of  opinions  is 
found  in  regard  to  the  latter  they  do  not  interfere 
with  consistent  churchmanship,  as  long  as  these  dif- 
ferences do  not  affect  the  analogy  of  faith."  (See 
Davenport  Theses,  17-19.) 

Because  Missouri  rejected  Iowa's  distinction  be- 
tween binding'  and  non-binding  doctrines  in  the  con- 


*=  Art.  \'II  of  the  .\ugsburg  Confession:  "Satis  est  ad  verani 
iinttatera  ecilesiac  cr.iiscntire  dc  doclrina  evangelii,"  etc.  "It  is  enough 
for  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  that  the  Word  be  preached  according 
to  the  true  meaning  of  the   gospel,"  etc. 

'^See  "Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,"  I,  1,  on  the  question,  "What  is 
necessary   for  Church  unity?" 


2^2  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF   MISSOURI.      §    23,11,* 

fessions,  and  denied  the  existence  of  "open  questions" 
(that  is,  questions  not  leading  to  schism),  it  is  natural 
that  this  difference  became  dominant  in  the  treatment 
of  the  various  controverted  points  at  that  time.  We 
mention  the  following: 

4.    The  Church  and  the  Ministry. 

While  Walther  emphasized  the  invisibility  of  the 
true  Church,  Loehe  maintained  that,  according  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  Church  is  the  visible  as- 
sembly of  those  w^ho  have  the  pure  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments, no  distinction  being  made  there  between  the 
visible  and  invisible  Church.  For  this  reason  the 
definition  of  the  Church  should  include  the  means  of 
grace,  so  that  the  Church  was  defined  as  the  invisible 
fellowship  of  faith  made  visible. 

Loehe  was  also  unable  to  approve  Walther's  "Doc- 
trine of  Transference,"  "*  according  to  which  the 
ministry  was  merely  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual 
priesthood  of  all  believers.  He  sided  with  Walther 
against  Grabau  in  declaring  that  the  office  of  the 
ministry  was  only  to  feed  and  lead  with  the  Word 
and  Sacraments,  and  had  no  right  to  set  up  as  or- 
dinances things  not  expressly  commanded  in  the 
Word  of  God.  But,  according  to  his  views,  the  min- 
isterial office  had  not  been  committed  to  the  spiritual 
priesthood  of  individual  Christians,  but  to  the  Church 
as  a  whole.  Not  every  individual  Christian  can  there- 
fore transmit  his  personal  share,  but  the  church,  as 


^"  See    Walther's   book    on    "Kirche    und   Amt,"   Thesis  2. 


§    23,11/       MISSOURI,    LOEIH-:   AND   IOWA   SYNOD.  293 

an   entirety,    must    transfer   the   oftice    instituted   by 
Christ.  "^ 

The  difference  between  Walther  and  Loehe  did 
not  lie  in  the  question  :  "Was  the  office  of  the  min- 
istry directly  transmitted  to  the  Church?"  but  in  the 
next  question :  "How  does  the  Church  possess  this 
office,  and  in  what  way  does  she  transfer  it?"  Loehe 
saw  in  the  ordination  more  than  merely  a  confirmation 
of  the  previous  transference  through  the  call,  viz., 
the  historically  and  liturgically  prescribed  form  of 
transference  of  the  oftice.  Since  both  parties  agreed 
concerning  the  fact  that  the  sacred  office  had  been 
given  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  Loehe  (and  with 
him  the  Iowa  Synod)  held  that  the  differences  might 
remain  an  "open  question,"  and  not  disturb  ecclesi- 
astical fellowship.  But  Missouri,  on  account  of  this 
difference,  asked  Loehe  to  discontinue  his  labors  in 
Michigan,  denied  him  the  fellowship  of  faith,  and 
shortly  afterwards  applied  these  measures  to  the 
whole  Iowa  Synod. 

NOTE:  It  may  be  well  to  compare  the  various  theories 
concerning  the  ministerial  office: 

Rome:  The  office  has  been  conferred  by  Christ  upon 
his  substitute,  the  Pope,  who  in  turn  transfers  it  to  the 
bishops,  by  whom,  in  the  interest  of  individual  communi- 
cants, it  is  transferred  to  the  priests. 

Episcopal:  The  office  has  been  transferred  by  Christ 
upon    the    bishops,   the    successors   of   the   apostles,  and   by 


=»  We  might  use  this  illustration:  The  church  building  belongs  to 
the  congrci'.ation  as  a  corporation,  not  to  the  individual  communicant. 
No  one  person  can  claim  this  particular  chair  or  pew,  or  the  altar. 
For  a  proper  legal  transfer  of  tlie  property  the  individual  members  do 
not  sign  away  their  interests,  but  the  congregation  acts  as  a  whole, 
as  a  unit,  and  in  this  manner  the  matter  is  transacted  legally  and 
according  to  regulation. 


294  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF    MISSOURI.      §    23,11," 

them  is  transferred  to  the  presbyters  in  the  interest  of 
individual  communicants. 

Bu£falo:  The  office  has  been  conferred  by  Christ  upon 
the  whole  Church  through  the  ministry,  and  is  passed  on  by 
the  ministers  in  the  interest  of  the  congregation  by  ordi- 
nation. 

Loehe:  The  office  has  been  conferred  by  Christ  upon 
the  Church  as  such,  and  is  given  to  individual  ministers  by 
the  call  of  the  congregation  and  by  the  ordination,  which 
is  the  liturgical  form  of  its  transference. 

Walther:  The  office  has  been  conferred  upon  the 
Church  in  the  spiritual  priesthood  of  all  the  members,  and 
is  transferred  upon  an  individual  by  the  individual  mem- 
bers; the  ordination  is  merely  the  confirmation  of  the  con- 
gregational call. 

Hoeflinsr:  The  office  is  an  institution  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  the  interest  of  orderliness. 

5.     Chiliasm. 

Loehe  had  expressed  himself  as  holding  views  in 
agreement  with  the  "Biblical  Chiliasts"  (Hoffman  and 
others).  In  consequence  of  this  fact,  the  Iowa  Synod, 
which  received  its  ministerial  supply  from  Neuendet- 
telsau,  at  once  was  suspected  of  chiliastic  views.  In 
order  to  reply  to  such  charges  of  Missouri,  the  presi- 
dent of  the  synod  ordered  an  essay  on  these  matters 
to  be  prepared  for  the  synodical  meeting  of  1858,  so 
that  a  clear  view  might  be  gained  "as  to  the  kind 
of  chiHasm  represented  by  us."  This  essay  was  pub- 
lished in  the  synodical  minutes  as  an  evidence  against 
false  accusations.  The  mere  fact  that  a  strong  anti- 
chiliast  (Rohrlack)  was  received  as  a  member  of  the 
Iowa  Synod  at  that  very  meeting  should  prove  con- 
clusively that  the  synod  did  not  wish  to  be  identified 
with  Chiliasm,  but  considered  the  issue  as  an  "open 
question,"  that  is,  one  not  productive  of  schism.     But 


§  23.11."'     MissovKi,  r.oKiii':  and  iowa  synod.  295 

as  the  accusation  of  teaching  gross  Chiliasm  was  con- 
tinually made  against  it,  the  synod  in  1864  adopted  a 
series  of  declarations,  in  which  its  position  on  this 
question  is  given  in  detail.  "'  These  declarations  ex- 
press a  more  decided,  more  vital  and  more  funda- 
mental antithesis  to  all  chiliastic  fanaticism  than  can 
be  found  in  any  other  resolutions  touching  this  ques- 
tion. Muenkel  (one  of  Germany's  strongest  op- 
ponents of  Chiliasm)  offers  the  following  opinion: 
"These  resolutions  are  veritable  arsenic  for  chiliastic 
fanaticism  of  any  kind,  and  no  real  Chiliast  will  ac- 
cept them."  "^ 

At  the  Milwaukee  colloquium  (1867)  Iowa  explained 
and  modified  some  of  the  expressions  contained  in 
this  report  of  1858,  and  Walther  dropped  the  asser- 
tion that  every  form  of  Chiliasm  was  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Confessions.  He  declared  that 
such  a  Chiliasm  as  had  been  submitted  to  him  was 
tolerable,  though  he  did  not  accept  it.  Later  he  is 
said  to  have  declared  that  the  controversy  with  Iowa 
had  been  prematurely  interrupted. 

An  agreement  wm  prevented,  however,  by  the 
difTereiit  interpretations  of  Rev.  20:  4,  5:  "They 
lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.  But 
the  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  again  until  the  thou- 
sand years  were  finished.  This  is  the  first  resur- 
rection." Walther  declared  that  whoever  interpreted 
these  words  as  referring  to  a  bodily  resurrection 
thereby  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  general  resur- 
rection, and  that  a  difference  of  views  concerning 
this  point  meant  a  division  in  the  Church.    The  rcprc- 

'^'f.ro.    J.     Fritjrhrl.    <;rscliirhfr.    pr     :'<K  ?^0. 
w  Prohsl,    Monaf^hrfti",    1R68,    p.    ?W. 


296  DOCTR.   CONTROVERSIES  OF   MISSOURI.      §    23, 1 1,'' 

sentatives  of  Iowa  denied  this  by  stating  that  beHef 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  on  Good  Friday  was 
not  a  denial  of  the  general  resurrection.  They  as- 
serted that  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  such  an 
exegetical  explanation  (providing  there  existed  har- 
mony in  other  things)  should  not  cause  a  schism  in 
the  Church.  The  issue  was  classified  by  them,  not 
as  a  doctrine  of  faith,  but  as  an  "open  question," 
The  synod  as  such  did  not  approve  the  one  or  the 
other   exegetical  interpretation. 

6.    The  Anti-Christ. 

Being  strictly  traditional  in  its  position,  Missouri 
placed  great  emphasis  on  the  assertion  of  Luther 
and  other  dogmaticians  that  the  Pope  is  the  Anti- 
christ. Since  Article  IV  of  the  second  part  of  the 
Smalcald  Articles  declares  that  the  Roman  Pope  is 
the  Antichrist  predicted  in  2  Thess.  2,  in  whom  all 
such  prophecies  find  their  fulfillment,  this  statement 
was  declared  to  be  a  doctrine  from  which  no  con- 
sistent Lutheran  can  deviate.  Whoever  refused  to 
confess  this  or  denied  it  had  abandoned  the  Lutheran 
confessions. 

Iowa's  spokesmen  replied  to  this  as  follows :  1 ) 
The  views  of  Luther  on  this  point  must  be  con- 
sidered together  with  his  other  eschatological  ideas. 
He  confidently  expected  the  end  of  the  world  before 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Such  a  view 
naturally  involved  the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy  in 
the  person  of  the  Pope.  ^-®  2)  Neither  Luther  nor 
the  Confessions  declare  that  the  Scriptures  say :  "The 


=="  Gottfried    Fritschel,    "Luther    und    ofTcne    Fragen;"      Rudelbach- 
Guericke,   Zeitschrift,   1867,   487. 


§    23,11,"       MISSOURI,    LOKIIK    AND    lOWA   SYNOD.  297 

Pope  is  the  Antichrist,"  but  state  this  as  their  per- 
sonal inference  from  the  comparison  of  history  and 
prophecy.  -^"  3)  Luther  has  nowhere  treated  this 
question  as  a  doctrine  of  faith.  '^^  4)  That  article 
does  not  discuss  the  question :  "Who  is  the  Anti- 
christ?" but  the  question:  "What  is  the  papacy?" 
5)  The  sentence  passes  judgment  on  the  anti-Chris- 
tian nature  of  the  papacy,  and  asserts  that  the  papacy 
is  through  and  through  anti-Christian ;  but  the 
eschatological  statement,  viz.,  that  the  Pope  is  the 
last  Antichrist,  cannot  be  proven  from  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  hence  it  is  merely  a  human  conviction.  It 
was  further  argued  that,  according  to  the  Bible,  the 
Antichrist  is  to  be  an  individual.  To  interpret  the 
prophecies  in  such  a  manner  as  to  expect  the  appear- 
ance of  a  particular  person  as  the  Antichrist  does  not 
conflict  with  the  confessions,  providing  that  which 
the  confessions  say  about  the  anti-Christian  nature 
of  the  papacy  is  retained. 

Both  sides  agreed  in  characterizing  the  papacy 
as  anti-Christian,  but  whether  or  not  in  the  last  days 
an  intensification  of  the  anti-Christian  elements  shall 
be  embodied  in  an  individual  was  a  point  of  dif- 
ference. Iowa  looked  upon  this  difference  as  an 
"open  question,"  not  necessitating  a  cessation  of 
ecclesiastical  fellowship. 

Missouri  eventually,  in  fact,  abandoned  its  po- 
sition. When  Theodore  Harms,  in  1876,  character- 
ized it  as  "a  whim  of  Missouri,"  Prof.  Brauer  and 
Pastor  Koestering  demanded  that  the  synod  should 


*=»"For    the    Pope,    together    with    the    Turk,    is    the    .\ntichrist,    I 
have  no  doubt.     You  may   think   as   you   choose."     Erl.  Ausg.,  7,   184. 
'»•  See  their   translation  in  Trcisel,   "The   Error  of  Missouri." 


298  DOCTR.    CONTROVERSIES   OF    MISSOURI.      §    23,11/ 

suspend  fellowship  with  him.  During  a  whole  fore- 
noon session  at  the  meeting  of  the  Western  District, 
Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  who  opposed  this  motion,  was 
made  a  target  of  the  "mud  batteries"  ("Graeupel- 
wetter")  of  his  opponents,  who  denounced  his  asser- 
tion that  to  view  the  Pope  as  the  Antichrist  was  not 
an  articulum  fidei.  Walther  finally  declared  himself  in 
favor  of  Schmidt,  and  thus  a  schism  with  Harms  was 
avoided.  Missouri  treated  this  difference  as  an  "open 
question." 

7.     The  Sunday  Controversy. 

The  difference  between  Iowa  and  Missouri  con- 
cerning Sunday  became  all  the  more  apparent,  be- 
cause in  regard  to  the  doctrine  itself  there  was 
perfect  and  absolute  agreement.  This  question  had 
been  strongly  argued  in  Germany,  but  Missouri  and 
Iowa  held  exactly  the  same  views.  Both  decWed 
that,  while  the  seventh  day  had  been  set  apart  in 
the  Old  Testament,  no  such  rule  applied  to  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  every  day  is  considered  holy. 
However,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  in  con- 
nection with  Easter  and  Whitsunday,  the  Church 
has  made  use  of  Sunday  as  a  time  for  religious  in- 
struction and  devotion.  Thus  Sunday  has  become  a 
Christian  Holy  Day.  Gerhard,  on  the  other  hand 
(and  a  number  of  others),  had  gone  a  step  further, 
and  had  taught  that  the  Church  had  to  set  apart 
one  day  in  seven,  because  God  had  rested  one  day  in 
seven.  This  assertion  was  not  presented  as  an  ex- 
press doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  but  as  an  inference 
from  the  order  of  creation.  Both  Iowa  and  Missouri 
held  to  Luther's  view  as  against  Gerhard's,  but  they 


§    23.11/       MISSOl'Kr,    LOEIll".   AND    IOWA   SVNOI).  2<^) 

differed  in  their  ecclesiastical  treatment  of  Gerhard's 
error.  Missouri  wanted  the  disciples  of  Gerhard  ex- 
cluded from  church-fellowship;  Iowa  declared  that  it 
could  tolerate  them. 

8.     The  Question  of  Usury. 

Dr.  Walther,  influenced  by  Luther's  writings,  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  acceptance  of  any 
kind  of  interest  on  money  loaned  constituted  the 
usury  which  is  forbidden  in  the  Scriptures.  As 
usual,  a  large  number  of  the  pastors  sided  with  him, 
and  the  synod  was  on  the  point  of  promulgating  this 
as  a  clear  Bible  doctrine.  But  the  opposition  of 
no  small  portion  of  the  pastors  and  congregations 
showed  that  such  a  step  would  precipitate  a  tre- 
mendous rupture  in  the  synod.  Walther  prevented 
the  rupture  by  declaring  ("Lutheraner,"  May  2,  1871, 
vol.  27,  p.  131)  that  a  distinction  must  be  made  be- 
tween such  doctrines  of  Scripture  as  are  doctrines  of 
faith,  and  such  as  are  not,  and  that  there  was  no 
intention  of  suspending  church  fellowship  on  account 
of  the  latter. 

In  doing  this  Walther  accepted  the  principle  which 
he  had  so  vigorously  opposed  in  his  controversy  with 
Iowa.  Even  to-day  Missouri  treats  the  question  of 
usury  as  an  "open  question,"  but  steadfastly  refuses 
to  apply  this  principle  to  any  other  issue. 

9.     Other  Differences. 

Besides  the  divergent  views  just  mentioned,  there 
were  a  number  of  diflferences  not  so  generally  argued 
as  the  preceding.  The  question  as  to  whether  a  man 
might   marry   the    sister  of   his   dead   wife    was   an- 


300  DOCTR.  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MISSOURI.      §  23,111/ 

swered  by  Iowa  in  the  affirmative,  while  Missouri, 
on  the  basis  of  certain  opinions  expressed  by  Luther, 
condemned  such  a  relation  as  incestuous.  In  the 
early  seventies  Prof.  Gottfried  Fritschel  discussed 
the  doctrine  of  "general  justification"  with  the  Nor- 
wegians and  Missourians,  forcing  his  opponents  to 
return  to  the  true  Lutheran  position.  On  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  Walther's  sympathies  were  with  the 
South,  and  he  permitted  the  rebel  flag  to  be  hoisted 
on  the  St.  Louis  Seminary.  This  caused  the  sem- 
inary to  be  closed  for  a  time.  The  form  of  oath 
after  the  war  was  quite  a  problem  for  Walther  (see 
Letters,  vol.  I,  p.  223  ff.).  In  the  controversy  concern- 
ing States  rights  and  the  principle  of  slavery  the 
Norwegians,  too,  were  involved.  Fire  and  life  in- 
surance were  considered  forbidden  in  the  Missouri 
Synod,  while  Iowa  declared  them  to  be  matters  of 
indifference  (adiaphora).  However,  no  serious  dis- 
cussions were  caused  by  these  differences ;  we  men- 
tion them  merely  to  complete  the  record. 


III.  THE  CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING 
PREDESTINATION. 

1.     Its  Historical  Development. 

It  is  an  undecided  question  just  at  what  time 
Walther  adopted  the  theory  of  predestination  which 
he  later  propounded.  But  it  is  certain  that  he  ar- 
rived at  his  conclusions,  not  through  the  study  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  rather  through  the  study  of  the 
old  dogmaticians.  This  he  himself  admitted  later  on. 
The  matter  was  not  presented  publicly  until  in  1868, 
when,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Wisconsin  District.  Pas- 


§    _\V'"''  CONt.  rCKNINC,    I'RI'PKSri  NATION.  30I 

tor  Hucgli  set  forth  W'althcr's  doctrine.  On  that 
occasion  Walther  expressed  himself  much  more 
strongly  than  is  indicated  in  the  minutes  of  the 
synod.  The  sligiit  objections  referred  to  in  the 
minutes  were  made  by  IVof.  J.  A.  Schmidt,  the  Nor- 
wegian professor,  a  colleague  of  Walther  at  St.  Louis. 
Prof.  S.  Fritschel,  passing  through  the  city,  attended 
the  meeting,  and  reported  the  details  of  this  doctrinal 
discussion  to  his  brother,  who  continually  observed 
the  development.  In  a  note  added  to  the  articles 
touching  the  question  of  usury  he  warned  against 
deviation  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  "Lehre  und 
W'ehre"  soon  published  a  series  of  articles,  reiterat- 
ing those  selfsame  teachings.  This  caused  Prof.  Gott- 
fried Fritschel  to  write  those  articles  in  "Brobst's 
Monatshctte,"  of  which  his  brother  said  that  they 
(in  1872)  contained  everything  which  in  later  dis- 
cussions has  been  brought  forth  in  arguments. 
"Lehre  und  Wchre"  and  also  "Brobst's  JNIonatshefte" 
replied.  Prof.  F.  \V.  Stellhorn,  at  this  time  profes- 
sor of  Missouri  (signing  himself  "Interpres"),  in 
the  "Monatshefte"  attacked  the  admissibility  of  the 
term  "Selbstentscheidung"  (free  decision)  in  a  gen- 
tlemanly manner.  A  Missouri  minister  (Huegli) 
and  a  certain  "f^.ottlicb  Gnadcnkind"  (Walther?)  also 
entered  the  lists.  Walther,  in  "Lehre  und  Wehre," 
expressly  declared  his  agreement  with  the  old  dog- 
maticians,  and  asserted  the  scripturalness  of  their 
position.  He  merely  characterized  as  ambiguous  the 
term  "intuitu  fidei"  (Lehre  und  Wehre,  May,  1872). 
After  this  concession  of  Walther,  there  followed  a 
period  of  quiet.  Btit  in  1877  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Western  District  \^''althcr  reiterated  his  construction 


302  DOCTR.  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MISSOURI.      §  23,111,^ 

of  the  dogma.  In  various  places  doubts  arose  as  to 
this  new  construction.  One  of  the  first  to  put  his 
objections  on  record  was  the  Norwegian,  Prof.  Asper- 
heim,  who  had  for  some  time  questioned  Missouri's 
position,  and  suspected,  in  the  rejection  of  the  phrase 
"intuitu  fidei,"  an  un-Lutheran  tendency  (Kirchliche 
Zeitschrift,  1878).  Being  attacked  for  his  stand  by 
his  colleague,  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt  (at  that  time  at 
Madison,  Wis.),  he  handed  in  his  resignation.  But 
Schmidt  soon  afterwards  realized  from  the  minutes 
of  1877  that  the  deviation  from  the  traditional  doc- 
trine was  more  serious  than  he  had  thought.  Presi- 
dent Strasen  induced  him  personally  to  approach  his 
former  colleague  (January,  1879).  Private  discus- 
sions of  the  subject  took  place  in  other  parts  of  the 
synod.  Schmidt,  by  request,  summed  up  his  views 
in  a  series  of  theses.  Pastor  H.  A.  Allwardt,  too, 
addressed  Walther  personally.  At  the  annual  meet- 
ing of  the  Synodical  Conference  at  Columbus,  Ohio, 
Schmidt  and  Walther  argued  privately  without  reach- 
ing any  conclusion.  It  was  agreed  that  the  discus- 
sions should  be  resumed  the  following  year,  and  that, 
meanwhile,  Schmidt  should  not  bring  the  difference 
to  public  notice.  However,  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Western  District  (1879)  Walther  publicly  attacked 
"certain  people"  of  his  own  synod  who  had  not  ap- 
proved of  his  doctrines.  He  discussed  their  argu- 
ments, and  it  soon  became  an  open  secret  that  he 
referred  to  Allwardt  and  Schmidt.  Now  Schmidt,  too, 
broke  silence,  and  sounded  an  alarm  by  publishing  a 
monthly,  "Altes  imd  Neues,"  Jan.,  1880,  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  opposing  Walther's  new  construc- 
tion.   The  sources  made  accessible  by  it  are  certainly 


§    23.111.'  CON(  liRNlNC    I'UKUKSTI  NATION.  3O3 

of  permanent  value.  '^"  Instantly  universal  attention 
was  drawn  to  the  controversy  between  Schmidt  and 
Walther.  Within  tlie  Norwegian  Synod,  whose  min- 
isters had  been  trained  largely  by  Schmidt  and  W'al- 
ther.  a  division  took  place.  In  almost  every  Nor- 
wegian congregation  the  issue  was  taken  up  and 
vigorously  debated.  The  president  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  refused  to  call  a  meeting,  but  ordered 
;i  ci^nfcreiice  cf  all  the  faculties  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  at  Milwaukee  (Jan.  5-10,  1881),  without 
attaining  any  results.  The  Missouri  Synod  held  a 
generzJ  ministerial  conference  at  Chicago  (Sept.  29- 
Oct.  5),  and  a  second  une  during  the  following  year 
at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.  Walther  here  was  chiefly  op- 
posed by  Ailwardt  and  Stellhorn  (at  that  time  Pro- 
fessor at  Fort  Wayne  College).  The  Missouri  dele- 
gates (1881),  after  a  brief  discussion,  adopted  the 
thirteen  theses  of  Walther,  only  five  voting  against 
them.  This  caused  Walther's  opponents  to  call  a 
meeting  at  Blue  Island,  111.,  where  they  organized  a 
separate  conference  and  left  tiie  Missouri  Synod. 
They  united  with  Ohio  as  the  Northwestern  District. 
The  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  Synods  took  sides 
with  Missouri,  but  lost  several  ministers  to  Ohio. 
Ohio  separated  from  Missouri  at  its  next  convention 
(1881),  because  the  Missouri  delegates  had  received 
instructions  not  to  unite  in  a  session  with  Stellhorn 
and  Loy.  The  Norwegians  meanwhile  sent  Prof. 
F.  A.  Schmidt  as  a  ilelegate  to  the  convention  (Chi- 
cago, Oct..  1882).  but  the  Missouri  representatives 
protested  against  his  admission  at  the  organization, 
unless  he  would  repent  for  having  particijiated  in 
meetings    of    congregations    which    had    left    these 


'These    are    translated    in    Tressel,    The    Error   of    Missouri. 


364  DOCTR.  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MISSOURI.      §  23,111,^ 

synods.  Scenes  were  enacted  at  this  conference 
over  which  the  synod  afterwards  expressed  regret, 
especially  the  behavior  of  some  of  its  delegates. 
Schmidt  was  not  admitted,  nor  was  he  afforded  any 
opportunity  to  justify  his  position.  The  Norwegian 
Synod,  hoping  to  reach  unity  within  its  own  circle, 
left  the  Synodical  Conference.  But  after  a  number 
of  years  Schmidt's  followers  withdrew,  starting  an 
independent  organization  and  establishing  their  own 
seminary.  Afterwards  negotiations  were  entered  into 
between  different  Norwegian  synods,  which  together 
formed  the  United  Norwegian  Synod  (see  paragraph 
referring  to  the  Norwegians). 

Among  the  chief  opponents  of  the  "new  Missouri 
doctrine,"  besides  Schmidt,  were  the  representatives 
of  Ohio — Stellhorn,  Loy,  AUwardt  and  Ernst.  At 
the  convention  at  Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  in  1881,  this 
synod  declared  its  allegiance  to  the  old  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  "intuitu  fidei,"  and  entering  a  pro- 
test against  Missouri's  heresy,  withdrew  from  the 
Synodical  Conference.  —  Iowa  also  declared  against 
Missouri  in  the  theses  of  St.  Sebald  (1881,  see  first 
edition  of  Neve,  p.  177-181)  and  in  the  resolutions 
of  Dubuque  (1882).  — The  faculty  of  Philadelphia, 
too,  although  with  some  hesitation,  took  issue  with 
Missouri.  The  faculty  of  Rostock,  having  been  re- 
quested by  the  congregation  of  Columbus,  Wis.,  to 
give  an  opinion,  expressed  its  disapproval  of  Walther's 
theory.  This  caused  a  controversy  between  Prof. 
A.  Graebner  and  Dr.  Dieckhoff.  As  was  natural, 
the  periodicals  (1880-1890)  published  a  number  of 
articles  on  this  subject,  and  quite  a  literature  in  the 
form  of  brochures  has  also  arisen. 


§    23.111.*  CON(  nKNINC.    rkl-.liKSTlNATION.  305 

In  the  early  nineties  the  battle  somewhat  sub- 
sided, but  from  1903  to  1907  a  series  of  inter-synodical 
conferences  (Watertown,  Milwaukee,  Detroit,  Fort 
Wayne)  were  arranged,  and  the  issue  was  revived. 
The  first  phase  of  the  controversy  centered  in  the 
question,  "What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination?" The  second  period  revolved  around  the 
question,  "What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning 
predestination?"  Finally  the  Missourians  terminated 
the  discussion.  Meanwhile  the  Norwegians  in  their 
discussion  of  the  subject  had  arrived  at  some  re- 
sults. They  reached  common  ground,  first  concerning 
conversion  and  afterwards  concerning  predestina- 
tion, based  upon  the  catechism  of  Pantoppidan  which 
was  revered  by  the  laity  almost  as  a  symbol.  The 
Synodical  Conference  warned  the  Norwegian  Synod 
against  the  adoption  of  the  theses.  For  this  purpose 
Dr.  F.  Pieper  published  a  brochure  on  the  subject, 
which  was  sent  to  every  Lutheran  minister  of  Amer- 
ica. The  Iowa  Synod,  on  the  other  hand,  in  1913 
offered  the  synods,  especially  Missouri  and  Wis- 
consin, open  and  general  conferences  for  the  dis- 
cussion of  their  differences.  This  concludes  the  doc- 
trinal controversy  in  its  historical  aspect. 


2.     The   Conlroverty    It«elf. 

While  the  discussion  started  with  the  doctrine  of 
predestination,  it  soon  developed  into  the  question 
of  conversion.  Nowadays  it  is  generally  conceded 
that,    within    tiie    Lutheran    Church,    there    are    two 

20 


306  DOC  TR.  CONTROVl^RSIES  OF  MISSOURI.      §23,111," 

modes  or  forms  of  presentation.  Missouri  at  first 
denied,  but  later  admitted,  this.  -^^  So  far  there  has 
not  been  a  sufficiently  clear  discussion  of  these  two 
modes  of  presentation.  Prof.  Geo.  J.  Fritschel  has 
given  us  a  very  explicit  delineation  of  them  in  his 
"Schriftlehrc."  According  to  this  view  there  is  no 
real  difference  of  doctrine  between  these  two  modes  ; 
the  only  difference  between  Luther  and  Calovius 
consists  in  a  theological  construction  and  in  the  man- 
ner of  presentation;  hence  the  terms,  "Lehrweisen," 
"Tropen."  It  is  stated  that:  1)  The  Formula  of  Con- 
cord (formulating  the  first  mode)  presents  the  matter 
"a  posteriori,"  i.  e.,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  be- 
lieving Christians,  while  the  dogmaticians  treat  it 
"a  priori,"  i.  e.,  from  the  viewpoint  of  eternity.  2) 
The  Formula  of  Concord,  in  opposition  to  synergism, 
discusses  the  question,  "Whence  does  my  state  of 
grace  of  which  I  am  conscious,  originate?"  while  the 
dogmaticians  answer  the  question :  "Who  will  with 
Christ  enter  Paradise?"  3)  The  Formula  of  Concord 
is  merely  concerned  about  the  converted,  while  the 
dogmaticians  speak  of  those  who  at  the  end  of  their 
lives  are  in  the  state  of  grace.  4)  Both  doctrines  are 
presentations  of  the  same  eternal  divine  decree  of 
grace,  but  they  offer  different  aspects  of  the  sub- 
ject, in  one  case  considering  the  present  realization 
of  grace  for  the  comfort  of  the  converted ;  in  the 
second,  its  complete  execution  for  the  purpose  of  an 
apologetical  refutation  of  any  construction  which 
would  charge  God  with  particularism. 


^' See  Iowa,  Dubuque,  1S82;  Ohio,  Wheeling,  ISf.l;   Norwegian   Theses 
of    Union;    Pieper,    Concerning    Unity. 


§    23.111.-  CONCERNINC    PKKDKSTl  NATION.  307 

Missouri's  opponents  assert  (and  the  charge  has 
never  been  disproved)  that  Missouri,  unlike  Iowa  and 
Ohio,  having  refused  to  recognize  these  two  aspects 
of  the  question,  has  construed  out  of  both  of  them 
an  entirely  new  doctrine  —  a  fact  which  appears  from 
the  indiscriminate  use  of  older  and  newer  dogma- 
ticians.  '^-  From  this  it  can  be  readily  seen  how 
the  Norwegians  found  no  difficulty  in  uniting  on 
common  ground,  seeing  no  reason  why  this  doctrine 
should  cause  a  schism  as  long  as  both  Calvinistic  and 
Synergistic  extremes  were  avoided.  To  them  the  con- 
troversy is  an  "open  question." 

The  doctrine  of  conversion  soon  became  a  part 
of  the  controversy.  This  is  natural  enough,  when 
we  consider  that  predestination  is  the  eternal  de- 
cree concerning,  first,  the  preparation  of  salvation, 
second,  the  imparting  of  it,  and,  third,  its  completion. 
Differences  concerning  the  eternal  decree  are  thus 
bound  to  appear  in  tlie  doctrine  pertaining  to  the 
imparting  of  salvation.  All  parties  agree  in  regard 
to  total  depravity  and  in  the  rejection  of  Synergism. 
But  they  differ  in  regard  to  the  doctrinal  construc- 
tion. One  of  the  main  questions,  ever  extant,  which 
remains  still  unsettled  is  the  following:  Is  con- 
version like  a  point  in  a  line,  a  momentary  event 
(Missouri),  or  is  it  a  gradual  process,  consisting  of  a 
number  of  moments  as  all  the  points  that  constitute 
a  line  (Ohio  and  Iowa).  Here  again  Missouri  con- 
strued its  own  doctrine,  which,  while  based  upon 
statements    of    both    the    confessions    and    the    dog- 


"^  Abundant  material  for  a  history  of  this  dogma  i»  found  in  .Mce.^'s 
"Zur  DogmcnRcschichtc  der  Lchrc  \  on  dcr  C.nadcnwahl;"  II.  \\'.  Harms, 
"Sammlungen    einiger    Zcugni»sc,"    7   brochures,    1892- 1914. 


308  DOCTR.  CONTROVERSIES  OF  MISSOURI.      §  23,111,^ 

maticians,  does  not  coincide  with  either  of  them. 
According  to  the  confessions  the  word  "conversion" 
signifies  the  process  of  repentance,  composed  of  con- 
trition and  faith ;  according  to  the  dogmaticians,  con- 
version means  a  change  of  personal  attitude  toward 
God  (the  last  point  of  the  line),  preceded  by  con- 
trition and  historical  faith.  As  this  difference  in 
principle  is  being  evolved,  other  differences  result- 
ing therefrom  become  apparent. 

To  illustrate,  we  mention  a  number  of  character- 
istic statements  issued  by  Missouri.  They  reveal  the 
"a  priori"  view : 

Predestination  is  the  actual  eternal  separation  of  cer- 
tain individual  souls  from  the  multitude  of  those  who,  even 
before  their  existence,  were  not  meant  to  be  saved.  When 
God  created  man,  He  foreknew  that  he  would  fall;  that  the 
devil  would  destroy  his  work.  Then  He  considered  what 
should  be  done  in  order  that  the  work  of  salvation  should 
not  be  ruined.  Well,  he  thought,  to  speak  humanly,  the 
devil  shall  not  do  with  this  work  as  he  has  done  with  the 
work  of  creation.  I  shall  see  to  it  that  a  very  large  number 
of  people  shall  most  certainly  be  saved.  And  this  is  elec- 
tion. 

First  God  therefore  counselled,  then  elected,  then  pre- 
destined. Yes,  God  has  chosen  some  people  from  eternity; 
He  has  decreed  that  these  must  and  shall  be  saved;  aye,  as 
sure  as  God  is  God,  these  shall  be  saved,  and  none  other; 
this  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  is  also  our  faith,  our  doc- 
trine and  our  confession.  That  some  attain  faith  and 
others  are  hardened  is  the  result  of  His  free  election. 

A  temporary  faith  may  be  the  result  of  the  grace  of  the 
Word,  but  not  of  election.  Election  is  only  the  cause  of 
the  faith  of  the  elect.  Yesterday  we  heard  it  said:  God 
demands  many  things  of  man  which  he  does  not  do.  But 
we  say,  if  God  proposes  anything  to  Himself,  He  sees  that 
it  is  done  in   spite  of  all  the   devils  in  hell.     The  general 


§    23-ll^'"  CONCERNING    PREDESTINATION.  309 

decree  of  salvation  may  be  undone  by  Satan,  but  not  so 
election.  Not  the  general  decree  of  salvation,  but  the  spe- 
cial decree  of  election  is  the  cause  of  a  persistent  faith. 
The  fact  that  God  has  decreed  to  save  a  number  of  people 
is  the  sole  cause  that  they  are  saved;  if  that  were  not  so, 
none  would  be  saved,  with  the  possible  exception  of  little 
children.  That  which  must  forever  remain  for  us  an  un- 
fathomable mystery  is  the  question.  Why  did  not  God  elect 
all  men  to  be  His  children,  since  He  certainly  had  the 
power  to  remove  even  the  most  willful  resistance  of  all 
sinners,  just  as  He  actually  does  in  the  case  of  the  elect? 

Humanly  speaking,  God  thought  thus:  "I  will  decree 
from  eternity:  this  one  and  that  one  shall  be  saved,  and  all 
the  devils  of  hell  shall  not  tear  them  out  of  my  hand.  Not 
only  will  I  lead  them  to  faith,  but  I  will  keep  them  in  it, 
and  in  this  way  save  them.  I  defy  the  creature  that  intends 
to  revolt  against  my  decree."  Now  this  glorious  comfort 
modern  theologians  try  to  snatch  away  from  us.  The  pure 
doctrine  of  predestination  is  such  that  reason  is  horrified, 
and  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  God  is  a  terrible  tyrant. 

Note:  The  verba  ipsissivia,  with  sources,  are  given  in 
the  German  edition  of  this  work.  These  sentiments  repre- 
sent a  contraction  of  the  quotations  in  German. 


§  24.     Its  Work. 

1.     Educational    Institutions. 

a)     Colleges.     Concordia  College  at  Fort  Wayne, 

Ind.  In  1861  the  classical  department,  which  had  been 
founded  at  Altenburg,  Perry  Comity,  Mo.,  in  1839, 
and  transferred  along-  with  the  theological  seminary 
to  St.  Louis  in  1849,  was  transferred  to  Fort  Wayne; 
and  the  theological  seminary,  which  had  existed  at 
Fort  W^ayne,  was  united  with  the  classical  course 
of  the  seminary  at  St.  Louis.  Number  of  professors, 
10 ;     of    students,   278.      Concordia    College,    at    Mil- 


3IO  THE   WORK   OF   THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    24,^ 

waukee,  Wis.,  is  an  institution  of  the  Missouri  Synod. 
Professors,  8;  students,  232.  Concordia  College  at 
St.  Paul,  Minn.  —  professors,  8;  students,  178.  Two 
pro-gymnasia,  one  at  Concordia,  Mo.  —  professors,  7 ; 
students,  140;  the  other  at  Bronxville,  N.  Y.  —  pro- 
fessors, 7;  students,  170.     Also  at  Winfield,  Kan. — 

6  professors  and  72  students ;  and  at  Conover,  N.  C.  — 

7  professors  and  65  students.  All  of  these  are 
synodical  institutions.  Besides  these,  Missouri  has 
three  pro-gymnasia  connected  with  different  districts : 
at  Oakland,  Cal.,  Portland,  Ore.,  and  New  Orleans,  La. ; 
also  a  number  of  private  institutions :  Walther  Col- 
lege, St.  Louis,  Mo. ;  Luther  High  School,  Milwaukee, 
Wis. ;  Luther  Institute,  Chicago ;  Bethany  Ladies' 
College,  Mankato,  Minn.,  and  Lutheran  High  School, 
Deshler,  Neb. 

b)  Normal  Schools.  The  largest  one  is  at  River 
Forest,  a  suburb  of  Chicago,  having  been  transferred 
from  Addison,  111.,  7  professors  and  192  students. 
Also  the  school  at  Seward,  Neb.,  7  professors  and  137 
students. 

c)  Theological  Seminaries.  The  theoretical  Con- 
cordia Seminary  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.  It  was  founded  in 
1839  in  Perry  County,  Mo.,  and  removed  in  1849  to  St. 
Louis,  where  the  practical  seminary  of  Fort  Wayne 
was  also  united  with  it.  At  this  seminary  Dr.  Wal- 
ther labored  as  professor  of  Systematic  Theology. 
With  him  the  following  men  labored  at  different  times  : 
Dr.  E.  Preuss,  who,  together  with  Baumstark,  be- 
came an  apostate  to  Rome ;  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt  (see 
predestinarian  controversy  and  history  of  the  Norwe- 
gians) ;  also  Prof.  M.  Guenther,  author  of  the  well- 
known  "Symbolik" ;  Dr.  G.  C.  Stoeckhardt,  noted  as 


§    24,'  KDlt  ATION  AL    I  N'STITL'TIONS.  Jli 

an  exegetical  schohir,  and  Dr.  A.  L.  Graebner,  author 
of  a  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
After  the  death  of  Walther,  Dr.  F.  Pieper  became 
his  successor,  and  liolds  this  position  at  the  present 
time.  Associated  with  him  is  the  following  faculty :  L. 
Fuerbringer,  F.  Bente,  G.  Metzger,  W.  H.  T.  Dau, 
li.  A.  W.  Krauss,  K.  Pardieck,  Theo.  Ciraebiicr.  The 
Practical  Concordia  Seminary  at  Springfield,  IlL,  or- 
iginated from  the  practical  department  of  the  sem- 
inary at  St.  Louis,  which,  under  the  direction  of 
Prof.  Craemer,  was  transferred  to  Springfield  in  1875, 
occupying  the  seminary  building  (formerly  called  the 
State  University  of  Illinois),  which  was  purchased 
from  the  Northern  Illinois  Synod.  After  the  death 
of  Craemer,  Prof.  R.  Pieper  became  president  of  the 
institution.  At  present  Prof.  R.  D.  Biedermann  is  its 
president.  The  faculty  is  represented  by  L.  Wessel, 
Fr.  Streckfuss,  O.  Boeckler,  Theo.  Engelder,  E.  Gross. 
As  the  seminary  has  a  two  years'  preliminary  course, 
the  entire  course  of  study  occupies  five  years.  There 
are  6  professors  and  230  students.  The  Missouri  Synod 
also  has  a  school  at  Porto  Alegre,  Brazil. 

2.     Missionary  Operations. 

a.  The  Foreign  Missionary  work  of  the  Missouri 

Synod  is  carried  on  among  the  Tamils  of  Fast  India. 
It  has  7  stations,  41  localities,  and  15  missionaries. 
Up  to  the  present  time  there  have  been  675  converts. 
In  1913  the  synod  raised  $38,750  for  the  support  of 
this   field. 

b.  Since    1898  it   has   also  maintained   a   mission 
among  the  Stockbridge  Indians. 


312  THE   WORK   OF  THE   MISSOURI   SYNOD.  §    24," 

c.  The  mission  among  the  negroes,  which  is  very 
successful,  is  carried  on  in  Arkansas,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Ilhnois,  Virginia,  and  North  Carohna.  It 
has  39  congregations  and  preaching  stations,  50  mis- 
sionaries and  assistants,  2434  colored  Christians,  and 
contributions  in  1913  amounting  to  $34,624. 

d.  Pastor  A.  Reinke  established  in  Chicago  a  mis- 
sion for  the  Deaf  and  Dumb,  which  comprises  8  con- 
gregations and  a  number  of  preaching  places. 

e.  An  Immigrant  mission  work  is  being  done  by 
the  Missouri  Synod  through  the  Lutheran  Pilgerhaus 
(Pastor  O.  H.  Restin)  in  New  York  and  through 
similar  agencies  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore. 

f.  Among  the  Poles,  Slovaks,  Letts,  Persians, 
Esthonians,  etc. 

g.  The  Home  Mission  work,  that  is,  the  estab- 
lishment and  support  of  new  organizations,  is  carried 
on  by  the  district  synods,  which  place  surplus  funds 
needed  for  this  work  into  the  general  mission  treas- 
ury of  the  synod.  From  this  fund  those  districts 
which  have  more  missions  to  sustain  than  the  money 
they  collect  from  their  own  congregations  will  enable 
them  to  support,  receive  assistance.  The  Missouri 
Synod  has  relations  with  Germany,  supporting  mis- 
sions of  the  Saxony  Free  Church.  At  London,  Eng- 
land, it  has  a  missionary  station  with  which  it  is  or- 
ganically connected.  In  1913,  $386,161  were  raised 
for  these  purposes. 

h.  Institutions  of  mercy  under  the  direction  of 
the  Missouri  Synod:  Its  orphanages  are  located  as 
follows:  Addison,  111.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  West  Rox- 
bury  (Boston),  Mass.,  College  Point,  N.  Y.,  Des  Peres, 
Mo.    (St.   Louis),   Indianapolis,   Ind.,  Warwood,   Pa., 


§    24,'''  MISSIONARY  OPERATIONS.  313 

New  Orleans,  La.  It  al.'^o  has  societies  for  the  care 
of  abandoned  children.  —  Homes  for  the  Aged  at  Ar- 
lington Heights,  111.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  Monroe,  Mich., 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Wamvatosa,  Wis.  —  Home  for  Epi- 
leptics at  Watertown,  Wis.  —  Hospitals  at  Beatrice, 
Neb.,  Cleveland,  O.,  East  New  York,  N.  Y.,  Fort 
Wayne.  Tnd..  Sioux  City,  la.,  Springfield,  111.,  St.  Louis, 
Mo.  —  Hospices  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  Chicago,  Milwaukee, 
New  York.  —  A  samatorium  for  consumptives  at  Den- 
ver, Col.  —  An  institution  for  the  deaf  and  dumb  at 
Detroit,  Mich.  —  Total  receipts  for  this  work  in  1913, 
S99,803. 

3.     Publishing   Interests. 

T'.ie  Concordia  Publishing  House  at  St.  Louis,  ^lo., 
whose  business  it  is  to  publish  works  and  pamphlets 
of  a  strictly  Lutheran  character,  turns  large  profits 
over  to  the  synodical  treasury  ($95,000  in  1913).  The 
best  known  of  the  Missouri  periodicaJs  are  the  "Lu- 
theraner"  and  "The  Lutheran  Witness"  (papers  for 
congregational  reading)  and  the  theological  magazines, 
"Theological  Quarterly,"  "Lehre  und  Wehre"  and  the 
"Homiletische  Magazin"  (in  German  and  English). 
All  of  these  are  edited  by  the  theological  faculty  of 
the  Concordia  Seminary  at  St.  Louis. 

Biographical  Notes. 

Karl  Ferdinand  Wilhelm  Walther,  D.  D.  The  history  of 
the  founder  of  the  Missouri  Sj-nod  has  been  touched  upon 
so  frequentl}'  in  preceding  chapters  that  we  need  to  add 
only  a  few  facts.  It  is  especially  important  to  mention  his 
writings.  Besides  the  book  already  referred  to  ("Die 
Stimme  der  Kirche  in  der  Frage  von  Kirche  und  Amt" 
(1852),  he  published.  "Die  rechte  Gestalt  einer  vom  Staat 
unabhaengigen  evangelisch-lutherischcn  O  r  t  s  g  e  m  cinde" 


314  THE    WORK   OF   THE    MISSOURI    SYNOD.  §    24 

1863),  a  much-used  volume  on  pastoral  theology  ("Pasto- 
rale") ;  sermons  on  the  Gospels  of  the  year  (1871),  and  an- 
other volume  of  sermons,  entitled  "Brosamen"  (1876). 
Noteworthy,  because  characteristic  of  his  theology  center- 
ing in  sola  gratia,  are  the  thirty-nine  evening  lectures 
before  his  students  (stenographically  reported),  on  the 
"Rechte  Unterscheidung  von  Gesetz  und  Evangelium" 
(published  after  his  death).  In  1878  he  received  his  Doctor 
of  Divinity  from  Capital  University,  Columbus,  O.  (Ohio 
Synod).  At  synodical  gatherings  Walther  generally  acted 
as  essayist.  As  a  leader  in  debate  he  was  unexcelled.  His 
last  lectures  were  delivered  at  the  meeting  of  the  Western 
District  of  the  Missouri  Synod  at  St.  Louis,  in  1886.  Here 
Walther  realized  that  his  vitality  was  ebbing  out  and  that 
his  days  were  numbered.  He  died  May  7,  1887.  Prof.  L. 
Fuerbringer  has  just  published  the  first  volume  of  Wal- 
ther's  letters,  which  is  to  have  two  sequels.  On  page  99  of 
the  first  volume  we  read  that  the  university  of  Goettingen 
inquired  of  Walther  in  1855,  if  he  would  accept  the  degree 
of  Doctor  of  Divinity.  Walther  writes,  "Very  politely,  but 
most  certainly,  I  refused."  He  suspected  Goettingen's  Lu- 
theranism. 

Paitor  F.  C.  D.  Wyneken,  born  May  13,  1810.  We  sim- 
ply add  to  previous  statements  that  he  came  to  St.  Louis  in 
1850,  and  was  made  president  of  the  Missouri  Synod.  He 
became  also  official  visitor  to  all  congregations.  In  this 
latter  position  his  rare  gifts  as  adviser  of  ministers  and 
congregations  were  very  apparent.  In  1864  he  was  called 
to  Cleveland,  O.,  where  he  was  active  until  1875,  when  he 
retired.  His  death  occurred  in  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  May 
4,  1876. 

Dr.  W.  Sihler,  born  November  12,  1801,  received  a  clas- 
sical education,  chose  a  military  career,  and  in  1823  at- 
tended the  military  academy  at  Berlin,  where  he  was  a 
classmate  of  Von  Moltke.  Weary  of  the  military  life,  he 
entered  the  University  of  Berlin  in  1826  to  attend  lecture 
courses  on  philology,  philosophy  and  theology.  After  occu- 
pying a  number  of  positions  as  teacher,  he  experienced 
genuine  conversion,  which  resulted  in  his  becoming  a  thor- 


^    24  lUOCK  MMirCAL    N'OTl-.S.  315 

ough  student  of  tlic  P.ihlo  aiul  the  Confessions.  Thus  en- 
gaged, he  was  roused  by  Wyneken's  call  for  missionaries. 
He  came  under  the  influence  of  Loche,  who  sent  him  to 
America.  Arriving  in  1843,  he  took  charge  of  the  congre- 
gation at  Pomeroy,  Ohio.  In  1845  he  was  made  successor 
to  Wyneken  at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,  and  remained  there  until 
his  death,  which  occurred  October  21,  1885.  During  the 
j'ears  of  the  founding  of  the  Missouri  Synod  he  became  a 
leader  of  the  Loehe  party.  For  fifteen  years  he  served  as 
professor  in  the  theological  department  of  the  college 
founded  by  Loehe  at  Fort  Wayne.  He  was  an  able 
preacher  and  a  prolific  writer,  having  published  several 
volumes  of  sermons,  an  autobiography,  and  numerous 
articles. 

Prof.  F.  A.  Craemer,  born  May  26,  1812,  in  Franconia, 
studied  theology  and  philosophy  at  Erlangen,  became  tutor 
in  England,  arrived  in  America  in  1845,  and  was  pastor  of  a 
Michigan  congregation  founded  by  Loehe.  He  organized 
the  first  Franconian  colony,  which  was  called  Franken- 
muth.  He  was  engaged  in  this  work  for  five  years,  and 
was  also  active  for  a  time  among  the  Indians,  and  then  was 
called  to  the  professorship  of  theology  in  the  seminary  at 
Ft.  Wayne.  This  position  he  held  until  his  death,  which 
took  place  May  3,  1891.  He  moved  with  the  seminary  when 
it  was  transferred  to  St.  Louis  in  1861,  and  thence  to 
Springfield,  111.,  in  1875. 

Pastor  O.  Fuerbringer  was  born  June  3,  1810,  at  Gera 
(Reuss),  studied  theology  in  company  with  Walther  at 
Leipzig,  and  was  also  a  member  of  the  famous  Bible  circle 
which  has  been  mentioned.  With  Sa.xon  emigrants  he 
came  to  America  in  1839,  took  part  in  the  founding  of  Con- 
cordia College  in  Perry  County,  Mo.,  and  also  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  itself.  He  served  congregations  at  Elkhorn 
Prairie,  111.  (1840),  at  Freistadt,  Wis.  (1851)  and  Franken- 
muth,  Mich.  (1858).  For  twenty-five  years  he  was  presi- 
dent of  the  Northern  District  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  and, 
in  the  words  of  Graebner,  "was  the  profoundest  thinker 
among  the  fathers  of  the  Missouri  Synod."    He  died  in  1858. 


3l6  THE   WORK   OF  THE    MISSOURI    SYNOD.  §    24 

Prof.  A.  L.  Graetner,  D.  D.,  was  born  at  Frankentrost, 
Mich.,  July  10,  1849,  and  studied  in  Concordia  College  at 
Fort  Wayne  and  the  Concordia  Seminary  at  St.  Louis. 
From  1872  to  1875  he  was  teacher  of  the  Lutheran  High 
School  at  St.  Louis ;  from  1875  to  1878  professor  at  the 
Northwestern  College  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod  at  Water- 
town,  Wis.;  from  1878  to  1887  theological  professor  at  the 
seminary  of  this  synod  in  Alilwaukee,  Wis.;  from  1878  until 
his  death  professor  in  the  Concordia  Seminary  at  St. 
Louis.  He  died  December  7,  1904.  His  specialty  v/as  church 
history;  his  principal  literary  product  was  a  history  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America  up  to  the  founding  of  the 
General  Synod;  he  also  published  a  book  on  Martin  Luther, 
a  work  on  Doctrinal  Theology,  the  life  of  J.  S.  Bach,  and 
many  articles  in  various  magazines.  Graebner  was  a  pro- 
found scholar  and  a  particularly  gifted  historian.  His 
early  death,  viewed  from  the  human  standpoint,  was  a  great 
loss  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 

Prof.  G.  C.  Stoeckhardt,  D.  D.,  born  in  Chemnitz,  Sax- 
ony, February  17,  1842,  was  educated  at  Meissen  (Fuersten- 
schule)  from  1857  to  1862,  and  studied  theology  at  Erlangen 
and  Leipzig  (1862-66).  He  was  teacher  in  the  girls'  school 
of  Tharandt,  Saxony;  assistant  preacher  of  the  German 
Lutheran  congregation  of  Paris  (1870) ;  chaplain  in  the 
Franco-German  war;  licentiate  of  Old  and  New  Testament 
exegesis  at  Erlangen  (1871) ;  religious  instructor  in  the 
gymnasium  of  that  city,  and  pastor  at  Plaunitz,  Saxony. 
In  1876  he  left  the  State  Church,  and  became  pastor  of  the 
Free  Church  congregation  of  Plaunitz.  In  1878  he  came 
to  America,  served  as  pastor  in  St.  Louis  from  1878  to  1887 
and  as  lecturer  on  exegesis  in  the  seminary.  In  1887  he  was 
elected  regular  professor  of  exegesis.  He  died  January  9, 
1913.  He  was  a  master  of  exegesis.  His  writings  are: 
Commentaries  on  Romans,  Ephesians,  I.  Peter,  Isaiah 
(Chapter  I-XII),  Biblical  History  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  Sermons  on  the  Passion  of  our  Lord  and  the 
Gospels  for  the  Advent  Season,  and  various  contributions 
to  periodicals. 


§    24  UlOCKArilliAL    NOTF.S,  ^\IJ 

Prof.  F.  Pieper,  D.  D.,  l)()rii  at  Carwitz,  Pomcraiiia, 
June  27,  1852,  was  educated  at  the  N'ortliwestern  University 
at  Watcitovvn,  Wis.,  and  Concordia  Seminary,  St.  Louis. 
He  was  ordained  in  1875.  became  pastor  of  a  congregation 
at  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  and  in  1878  was  appointed  the  suc- 
cessor of  Dr.  Waltlicr  in  the  chair  of  Systematic  Theology 
at  St.  Louis.  From  1899  to  1911  he  served  as  president  of 
tlie  Missouri  Synod.  He  is  the  autlior  of  the  following 
books:  Das  Grundbekenntnis  der  Lutherischen  Kirche,  1880; 
Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung,  1889;  Die  Evangelisch  Lu- 
therische  Kirche  die  wahre  Sichtbare  Kirche  auf  Erden,  1890; 
Distinctive  Doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church  (1892);  Das 
Geistliche  Leben  der  Christen,  1893;  Unsere  Stellung  in 
Lehre  und  Praxis,  1896;  Lehrstellung  der  Missouri  Synode, 
1897;  Christ's  Work,  1898;  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums, 
1903;  Die  Grunddiflferenz,  1904;  Conversion  and  Election, 
1913. 


B. 

THE  OTHER  PARTS  OF  THE  SYNODICAL 
CONFERENCE.* 


§  25.  The  General  Synod  of  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Michigan  and  Other  States  was  formed  in  1892 
for  the  purpose  of  attaining  practical  results  by  means 
of  concerted  action.  Its  constituent  parts  are  related 
to  the  general  body  like  districts  to  a  synod,  all  rights 
(with  the  exception  of  those  expressly  conceded  to 
the  general  organization)  being  retained  by  the  dis- 
tricts. In  this  respect  the  General  Synod  of  Wis- 
consin, Minnesota,  Michigan  and  Other  States  is 
unlike  Missouri,  Ohio  and  Iowa,  which  place  juris- 
dictional powers  upon  the  synod.  It  takes  a  middle 
ground  between  a  synod  and  a  synodical  union. -^^ 
In  1905  the  Nebraska  District  Synod  was  received 
into  membership.  Such  a  step  is  made  contingent  on 
synchronal  membership  in  the  Synodical  Conference. 
The  theological  seminary  at  Wauwatosa,  Wis.,  the 
gymnasium  at  Watertown,  Wis.,  the  teachers'  insti- 
tute at  New  Ulm,  Minn.,  and  the  preparatory  school 
at  Saginaw,  Mich.,  are  being  jointly  supported.  In 
the  summer  of  1915  a  plan  was  carried  out  according 
to  which  the  individual  synods  united  into  one  synod 
by  transferring  their  rights  to  the  new  General  Synod, 

*  Contributed  by    the  Rev.    O.    Engel. 
2^°  Kraushaar,   C.   O.     "Verfassnungsformen   der   Lutherischen    Kirche 
Ameiikas,"    Guetersloh,    19n,    p.    479. 

(318) 


§  2^,\,^  Till-:  WISCONSIN  sYNon.  319 

then  ill  course  of  formation,  wliioli  in  turn  is  divided 
into  different  districts.  Latest  statistics  :  453  pastors  ; 
142  teachers;  548  congregations;  143  preaching  sta- 
tions ;  23,250  voters,  and  104.100  communicants. 


I.     THE  WISCONSIN  SYNOD. 
1.     Its  Origin  and  Confessional  Character. 

In  the  middle  of  the  past  century,  wlicn  the  stream 
of  German  emigration  was  directed  to  America,  Wis- 
consin was  considered  a  German  Eldorado.-''*  This 
State  with  its  mighty  forests,  numerous  lakes  and 
imposing  rivers,  particularly  interested  the  Northern 
Germans :  Pomeranians,  Mecklenburgers.  Hannovcr- 
ians  and  West-Prussians.  Since  the  bulk  of  these 
immigrants  were  Lutherans,  a  wonderful  field  was 
thus  opened  for  Lutheran  mission  work. 

The  Buffalo  Synod-'^''  was  the  hrst  on  the  ground 
to  gather  scattered  Lutherans  into  congregations ; 
trouble  in  one  of  their  Milwaukee  churches  gave  Mis- 
souri the  opportunity  to  gain  a  foothold  on  Wisconsin 
territory.  The  Rev.  C.  Frickc.  a  Missouri  "visitator" 
on  the  adjoining  field  of  northern  Illinois,  had  been 
active  there  before.  The  Franckean  Synod,  too.  sup- 
plied some  preaching  stations  west  of  Lake  Michigan 
prior  to  1850.-'"'  Soon,  however,  emissaries  of  mis- 
sionary societies  from  Germany  appeared  on  the  scene 


^^  Wolf,  E.  J.:  "Liithcr.ins  in  .Vincrica,"  C.crman  edition  liy  J. 
Nicutn.  pp.   391-400,  "Die   Wisconsin   Synode,"   by   Dr.   A.    Ernst. 

*>*  Everest,  Kate  A.:  "Early  Lutheran  Immigration  to  Wisconsin." 
Transactions  of  the  Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts  .ind  Letters, 
\ol.   8.   pp.   289-298. 

'"Van  Alstinc.  N.:  "Historiirl  R<.vie\v  of  the  Fr.mckean  Syno.l 
of    New   York,"    Philadelphia.    1893.    p.    10. 


320  OTHER  PARTS  OF  SVXODICAL  CONFERENCl':.        §    25/ 

and  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  present  Wisconsin 
Synod. 

In  1836  a  certain  Ehrenfried  Secbacli  of  Oakwood, 
near  Milwaukee,  made  application  to  the  Langen- 
berg  Society  for  a  ministerial  supply.-^^^  A  similar 
request  came  into  the  hands  of  Pastor  F.  W.  Schmidt, 
West  Leydon,  N.  Y.,  who  meanwhile  had  met  a  can- 
didate from  the  Rhenish  Mission  House  (J.  Wein- 
mann),  and  sent  him  on  to  the  petitioning  congre- 
gation at  Kilbourn-Road. 

On  June  27,  1848,  the  Rev.  J.  Muehlhaeuscr,  a 
theological  candidate  from  the  Barmen  Mission  and 
an  emissary  of  the  Langenberg  Society,  arrived  at 
Milwaukee,  coming  from  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  in  behalf 
of  the  New  York  Tract  Society,  and  founded  Trinity 
Church  (of  moderate  confessionalism),  later  known 
as  Grace  Church  (Gnadenkirche).  He  was  succeeded 
by  W.  Wrede,  who  had  come  to  America  together 
with  Weinmann.  Wrede  took  charge  of  the  con- 
gregation at  Granville. 

Recognizing  the  necessity  of  synodical  co-opera- 
tion, the  three  emissaries  of  the  Langenberg  Society 
(Weinmann,  Wrede,  Muehlhaeuser)  fonned,  together 
virith  Paul  Meiss  and  C.  Pluess  (licensed  candidates), 
the  Synod  of  Wisconsin  and  Adjoining  States,  known 
at  that  time  as  the  Ev.  Luth.  Ministerium  of  Wis- 
consin.-^* Muehlhaeuser  was  made  president,  Wein- 
mann secretary,  and  Wrede  treasurer.  Beginning  as 
a  tiny  seed,  the  synodical  plant  soon  expanded  into  a 
mighty  tree  whose  foliage  is  at  present  covering  nine 


^^  Dritter  Bericlit  der  Evangelischcn  Gesellschaft  fucr  die  protes- 
tanischen   Deutschen   in    Nord-Anierika,    Barmen,   1847,   p.    19. 

=^  "Gemeindeblatt,"  1900,  No.  11-13;  Ceschiclite  der  Synodc  von  Wis- 
consin, by  Prof.  J.   P.   Koehler. 


§    J^,'-"  Tin:    WISCONSIN    SYNOD.  32I 

great  states.  In  1863  the  number  of  pastors  had 
been  increased  from  5  to  32,  and  that  of  the  con- 
g^reg-ations  from  18  to  59. 

The  first  synodical  constitution,  modelled  by  Presi- 
dent Muchlhacuscr  after  that  of  the  New  York  Min- 
isterium,  characterized  its  confessioncd  position  merely 
as  being  Evangelical  Lutheran,  lint  as  early  as  1863 
we  notice  a  more  explicit  doctrinal  statement:  "This 
body  acknowledges  the  entire  canonical  writings  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  sole  standard  of 
faith,  and  also  the  Symbolical  Books  as  the  proper 
interpretation  of  the  Word  of  Ood."  Congregations 
desirous  of  uniting  with  this  synodical  alliance  must 
accept  "the  pure  confessions  of  the  Ev.  Luth.  Church 
as  the  rule  and  standard  of  faith  and  life".  From  a 
"mild  and  conciliatory"  attitude  the  Lutheranism  of 
this  synod  has  developed  into  one  of  uncompromising 
fidelity  to  the  Lutheran  confessions. 

2.     Relations   With   Germany. 

a.  Since  Berlin  and  Langenberg  supplied  the 
Wisconsin  Synod  with  ministers,  it  was  but  natural 
that  an  amicable  relationship  existed  between  them. 
On  the  occasion  of  an  Elberfeld  Missionsfest  (July 
27.  1837)  the  P'vangclical  Alliance  for  the  Protestant 
(icrmans  of  North  America  was  organized  by  several 
devoted  Christians,  after  its  necessity  had  been  empha- 
sized at  the  General  Convention  of  the  Rhenish  Mis- 
sion, June  7,  1837.-'''^  While  this  alliance  was  a  part 
of  the  Prussian  Union,  permitting  its  pastors  to  decide 

^^  "Palmblacttcr."  Orran  fncr  christlichc  Mitteil"n(rcn.  I'ntcr 
Mitwirkung  von  Dr.  F.  W.  Krummachcr,  edited  by  Pastor  F.  SanHcr. 
Elbcrfclit.    1847.    p.    105. 

21 


322  OTHER    PARTS    OF    THE   SYN.    CONF.  §    25,'-* 

for  either  the  Reformed  or  Lutheran  versions  of 
faith,  it  announced  as  its  sole  purpose  in  sending 
missionaries  to  America,  "the  protection  against  in- 
fidehty  of  brothers  and  sisters  in  distant  lands,  the 
guiding  into  paths  of  truth  of  the  erring,  their  instruc- 
tion in  the  Word  of  Life  and  their  organization  into 
churches  guarding  the  jewel  of  faith  for  future  gen- 
erations". -'"  In  1852  the  Langenberg-Elberfeld  and 
the  Berlin  societies  united  for  this  foreign  work,  and  in 
order  to  encourage  young  men  to  enter  the  field  they 
prevailed  upon  the  government  to  permit  missionaries, 
who  had  served  in  foreign  fields  for  a  period  of  five 
years,  to  return  to  the  fatherland  and  there  to  con- 
tinue their  ministerial  career.  This  decision  has  ma- 
terially aided  the  Wisconsin  Synod  in  securing  German 
university  men  for  many  of  its  parishes. 

b.  Fund  Raising  Trip  of  Pastor  Bading.  Since 
the  few  ministers  sent  from  Germany  could  not  pos- 
sibly serve  the  ever  increasing  number  of  immigrants, 
it  became  necessary  that  American  seminaries  should 
be  founded  for  the  training  of  pastors.  To  raise 
funds  for  such  a  purpose  President  Bading  was  sent 
to  Europe  to  interest  wealthy  friends  of  the  Lutheran 
cause  in  foreign  lands.  In  June,  1863,  while  the 
Watertown  seminary  was  in  course  of  construction, 
Bading  started  for  Germany,  and  after  pleading  for 
funds  in  Westphalia,  Hanover,  Pomerania  and  parts 
of  Russia,  he  started  for  the  return  journey  at  Nishnij- 
Novgorod,  60  miles  east  of  Moscow,  with  a  total  fund 
of  3,500  silver  rubels.  Passing  through  Bremen.  Ber- 
lin, Hamburg  and  places  in  Switzerland,  he  increased 

-^»  Dedekind,  M. :  "75  Jalire  deutsch-evangcli^clicr  Diasporaarbcit 
in   Xord   und   Sued   Amerika,"   Barmen,   1912,   p.   6. 


§    J5 •''*■"  THK    WISCONSIN    SYNOD.  323 

this  sum  to  11.721  Talcr,  wliich,  after  a  trip  of  six 
months'  durati(.»n.  Ik-  placed  at  tiie  disposal  of  the 
building  committci.'  of  tlie  new  seminary.  Considering 
that  this  contribution  was  made  during  the  Civil  War, 
its  importance  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 

c.  The  Pro-Seminary.  Believing  that  there  was 
a  decided  tendency  among  the  young  men  of  America 
toward  materialistic  ideals,  the  leaders  of  synod  soon 
felt  the  need  of  a  German  pro-seminary  where  youth 
might  be  inspired  by  the  call  of  the  Gospel.  They 
applied  successively  and  vainly  to  Pastor  Lohmann, 
Glowitz,  Pomerania,  who  could  not  comply  with  their 
wishes  on  account  of  complications  arising  from  the 
Danish-Prussian  war;  to  Wichern  of  the  Rauhe  Haus. 
Hamburg,  who  refused  for  doctrinal  reasons,  and  to 
Polstorff  of  Mecklenburg,  who  could  not  see  his  way 
clear.  The  Berlin  Society  promised  assistance,  but 
though  the  w'ork  was  begun  and  two  able  theologians 
secured  as  instructors,  a  hitch  on  account  of  doctrinal 
considerations  prevented  its  successful  outcome.  The 
project  was  definitely  abandoned,  but  the  Wisconsin 
Synod  by  this  correspondence  attained  a  position  of 
prominence  which  induced  Germany  to  supply  the 
Watertown  seminary  with  theological  stifdents. 

d.  Wisconsin  and  the  Prussian  Union.  As  soon  as 
Pastor  A.  Hoenecke  hccanu*  a  nicnihcr  of  the  seminary 
faculty,  a  decided  change  toward  conservative  Lu- 
theranism  was  felt  throughout  the  synod.  It  man- 
ifested itself  in  the  stand  taken  by  the  synod  against 
the  use  of  a  ("unionized")  catechism  in  vogue  in 
the  Prussian  State-Church  and  the  admission  to 
Lutheran  communions  of  Reformed  communicants. 
Although  suspected  of  Prussian  Unionism  on  account 


324  OTHER   PARTS   OF   THE    SYN.    CONF.  §    25,^>'' 

of  past  negotiations,  the  synod  did  not  hesitate 
openly  to  declare  against  unionistic  principles.     As 

a  result  of  this  action,  Langenberg  and  Berlin  not 
only  refused  to  cooperate  in  the  establishment  of  a 
pro-seminary,  but  influenced  the  Prussian  Consistory 
to  withdraw  the  money  (7,500  Taler)  pledged  toward 
the  support  of  the  synod.  Two  candidates  of  the 
Prussian  State-Church,  being  advised  by  the  Con- 
sistory, left  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  while  others  sev- 
ered their  connection  with  the  mother  church  abroad. 
This  rupture  between  Germany  and  the  Wisconsin 
Synod  resulted  in  the  desire  on  the  part  of  Wisconsin 
for  closer  relationship  with  other  American  synods. 

3.    Relation  With  Other  Synods. 

a.  The  Pennsylvania  Synod.  For  almost  two 
decades  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  through  its  Board 
of  Domestic  Missions,  sent  from  $200  to  $400  annually 
for  the  support  of  underpaid  pastors  of  the  Wisconsin 
Synod.  All  it  required  in  return  for  this  generosity 
was  an  occasional  report.  When  Wisconsin  sent  its 
first  aspirant  for  the  ministerial  office  to  be  edu- 
cated in  a  seminary  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  he 
received  not  only  his  tuition  but  his  board,  lodging  and 
general  expenses  from  that  body.  Wisconsin  event- 
ually separated  from  the  General  Council  (largely  the 
creation  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod),  and  these 
friendly  relations  ceased. 

b.  Iowa  Synod.  With  the  increasing  tendency 
among  individual  synods  toward  union  with  general 
bodies,  Iowa  and  Wisconsin  got  closer  together.  To 
effect  a  union  special  conferences  were  arranged  in 
1866  by  representatives  of  both  synods.     But  their 


§  25,^''  Tin-:  WISCONSIN  synod.  325 

doctrinal  differences  were  so  marked  that  harmony 
seemed  to  be  out  of  the  question.  The  two  Fritschels 
and  Inspector  Grossmann  appeared  at  a  subsequent  an- 
nual convention  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod  and  argued 
the  matter  of  "open  questions"  on  the  basis  of  the  Dor- 
pat  opinion.  But  i'rol.  Iloenecke,  equipped  with  fine 
theological  scholarship,  ably  disputed  the  opinion  of 
the  Dorpat  faculty,  and  caused  his  synod  to  express 
itself  against  the  Iowa  theory.  Though  at  the  form- 
ing of  the  General  Council  Wisconsin  sided  with  Iowa 
in  regards  to  the  four  points,  a  union  of  the  two 
synods  was  not  brought  about.  Wisconsin,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  strove  to  unite  with  Missouri. 

c.  Minnesota  Synod.  That  Minnesota  and  Wis- 
consin were  not  far  apart  appeared  from  the  fact 
that  they  interchanged  delegates  at  their  synodical 
meetings.  This  pleasant  relationship  was  further 
stimulated  by  the  call  to  Minnesota  of  Pastor  J.  H. 
Sieker,  who  as  president  of  synod  worked  unceasingly 
in  the  interest  of  union,  and  by  the  mission  trip  (with 
the  consent  of  his  synod)  of  Professor  E.  F.  Mol- 
dehnke  through  the  Northeastern  part  of  that  State 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Minnesota  brethren.  The  Wis- 
consin Synod  was  gradually  severing  its  relation  with 
Eastern  synods,  and  through  Bading  and  Hoenecke 
approached  the  Minnesota  Synod  in  regard  to  a 
union.  At  the  colloquium  at  La  Crosse,  Wis.,  Sept.  25, 
1869,  it  became  evident  that  their  doctrinal  positions 
were  identical.  But  inasmuch  as  Minnesota  was  still 
organically  linked  to  the  General  Council,  a  formal 
union  was  temporarily  given  up.  In  1871  Minnesota 
was  permitted  to  send  students  to  the  Wisconsin 
seminary,  and  also  to  make  use  of  the  "Gemeindeblatt" 


326  OTHER    PARTS    OF   THE   SYN.    CONF.  §    2^,''-'^ 

as  the  synodical  organ.  Since  both  Wisconsin  and 
Minnesota  are  members  of  their  General  Synod  and 
also  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  they  are  bound 
tog-ether  with  double  ties.  (See  history  of  Minnesota 
Synod.) 

d.  The  Missouri  Synod.  After  its  failure  to  unite 
with  synods  in  the  East,  Wisconsin  tried  to  get  into 
fraternal  relations  with  Missouri.  On  the  occasion 
of  a  colloquium,  held  at  Milwaukee,  Oct.  21  and  22, 
1868,  and  participated  in  by  ten  representatives  of  both 
synods,  it  was  found  that  doctrinal  standards  were 
identical.  As  a  practical  result  of  this  fact  an  agree- 
ment was  reached  regarding  educational  cooperation. 
Missouri  was  to  send  an  instructor  to  Watertown,  and 
Wisconsin  to  supply  a  theological  Professor  for  St. 
Louis  and  to  abandon  its  own  theological  institution. 
After  a  period  of  eight  years  Wisconsin,  unable  to 
comply  with  this  arrangement,  asked  to  have  it  set 
aside.  Meanwhile  the  Synodical  Conference  came 
into  existence,  uniting  Missouri  and  Wisconsin  as  its 
chief  constituents. 

4.     Participation   in   the   Forming   of  Larger  Bodies. 

a.  General  Council.  Wisconsin  was  greatly  inter- 
ested in  the  organization  of  the  General  Council.  It 
realized  that  the  getting  together  of  Lutherans  would 
strengthen  the  faithful  and  extend  the  sphere  of  Lu- 
theran usefulness;  and  so  it  cherished  the  hope  that 
union  with  Eastern  synods  would  arouse  Eastern 
enthusiasm  for  Western  missions  and  expedite  the  use 
of  a  common  hymnal  and  ritual.  For  these  reasons 
the  adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  declared 
a  sufificient  basis  of  unity,  and  the  Wisconsin  Synod 


§    J5'*"*'  '^"'■-    ^VISCONSIN    SYNOD.  32/ 

through  its  President.  W.  Strcissguth,  and  Professor 
A.  Martin  applied  for  membership  in  the  General 
Council.  At  the  synodical  meeting  of  1867  the  doc- 
trinal basis  adopted  at  Reading  was  discussed,  and 
point  9  changed  to  convey  that  all  the  Lutheran  con- 
fessional writings  were  equally  binding.  At  the  con- 
vention of  1867,  held  at  Fort  Wayne,  the  matter  of 
the  four  points  appeared  in  the  foreground.  These 
four  points  pertaining  to  chiliasm,  secret  societies, 
altar  fellowship  and  exchange  of  pulpits  had  been 
referred  by  the  General  Council  to  the  district  synods, 
and  Wisconsin  felt  bound  to  declare  for  a  proper 
statement  of  its  position.  The  question  of  altar  fel- 
lowship caused  a  violent  debate  which  resulted  in  the 
following  resolution  :  "This  synod,  together  with  the 
true  Lutheran  church,  rejects  as  incompatible  with 
the  principles  of  the  church,  every  kind  of  fellowship 
of  altar  or  pulpit  with  men  of  different  faith."  Since 
the  General  Council  Avould  not  take  a  definite  stand 
along  these  lines,  the  Wisconsin  Synod  withdrew  from 
its  organization  (=;cc  history  of  Gen.  Coun.,  §  17,  3). 
b.  Synodical  Conference.  Wisconsin  maintained 
fraternal  relations  with  Missouri,  and  opened  nego- 
tiations  for  union  which  led  to  the  founding  of  the 
Synodical  Conference.  On  Jan.  ii,  1871,  representa- 
tives of  Missouri,  Ohio,  Wisconsin  and  the  Norwegians 
met  at  Chicago  to  formulate  a  constitution  on  the 
basis  of  which  all  Lutheran  synods  of  America  might 
form  an  American  Lutheran  Church.  In  1872  this 
Synodical  Conference  held  its  first  official  convention 
at  St.  John's.  Milwaukee.  Soon  afterwards  Prof.  A. 
Schmidt  of  the  Norwegian  Synod  advocated  the  or- 
ganization of  all  Lutherans  residing  in  a  State  into 


328  OTHER    PARTS    OF    THE    SYN.    CONF.  §    25,*'*' 

State  synods.  But  the  plan,  having  been  submitted 
to  the  Synodical  Conference  at  its  convention  at 
St.  Paul  (1876),  was  vigorously  opposed  by  the  Wis- 
consin Synod  and  eventually  dropped.  Belonging  to 
the  Synodical  Conference,  the  Wisconsin  Synod  took 
an  active  part  in  the  famous  controversy  on  predes- 
tination. When  a  faction  in  the  Norv^egian  Synod  and 
Ohio  characterized  Walther's  doctrine  (propounded  in 
the  synodical  reports  of  the  Western  District  of 
the  Missouri  Synod)  as  Calvinistic,  doctrinal  discus- 
sions followed  which  shook  the  very  foundations  of 
the  American  Lutheran  church.  A  colloquium,  held 
at  the  seminary  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod  and  partici- 
pated in  by  the  theological  faculties  of  all  synods,  led 
to  a  rupture,  and  Ohio  and  a  number  of  the  Nor- 
wegians withdrew  from  the  Synodical  Conference.  At 
the  annual  convention  at  La  Crosse,  Wis.  (1882)  the 
Wisconsin  Synod  declared  its  position  in  this  matter, 
losing  thereby  a  number  of  pastors  and  congregations. 
During  the  controversy  Dr.  Hoenecke  by  gentle  and 
conciliatory  speech  took  the  sting  out  of  Missouri's 
offensive  phraseology,  and  accomplished  much  in  the 
interest  of  the  peace  of  the  church. 

5.     Educational  Institutions. 

a.  Theological  Seminary.  On  account  of  the 
large  influx  of  German  immigration  the  synod  grew 
so  rapidly  that  it  became  necessary  to  consider  steps 
for  the  training  of  theological  students  within  the 
bounds  of  the  synod.  This  matter  was  agitated  as 
early  as  1859.  But  a  definite  decision  was  not  arrived 
at  until  1863,  when  Pastor  Moldehnke  was  recalled 
from  his  missionary  journeys  and  made  director  of  a 


§    J5'l'^'"  '^'"'■-    ^VISCONSIN    SYNOD.  Z~9 

prospective  institution,  which  began  its  activity  in  a 
building  at  Watertown,  Wis.,  rented  lor  this  pur- 
pose and  attended  by  two  students.  Moldehnke  held 
his  position  three  years,  and  then  accepted  a  call  tu 
a  congregation  in  Germany.  Pastor  Hoenecke  was 
chosen  as  his  successor.  With  the  assistance  of  the 
Berlin  Society  and  as  a  result  of  a  special  trip  of 
Pastor  G.  Vorberg  to  Germany,  a  number  of  young 
men  from  Germany  immigrated  to  this  country  and 
arranged  for  a  theological  education.  Having  main- 
tained (together  with  Missouri)  a  general  seminary 
at  St.  Louis  from  1870-1878,  the  synod  reojjcned  a 
seminary  of  its  own  at  Milwaukee  with  an  enroll- 
ment of  6  students.  On  Sept.  17,  1893,  a  new  insti- 
tution was  dedicated  at  Waukatosa,  a  suburb  of  Mil- 
waukee. It  has  a  faculty  of  four:  J.  P.  Koehler 
(1900),  A.  Pieper  (1902),  ]'.  Schaller  (1908),  H.  Meyer 
(1915).     Number  of  students,  65. 

b.  Northwestern  College.  While  the  seminary 
was  opened  in  1863,  the  college  opening  was  post- 
poned to  1865,  when  the  new  buildings  were  com- 
pleted.-" Prof.  Martin,  of  Hartwick  Seminary, 
was  made  principaL  During  the  following  year  the 
number  of  students  increased  from  8  to  66.  When 
funds  ram  short,  Pastor  Sieker  sold  scholarships,  and 
thus  helped  to  raise  some  $64,000  in  a  very  short  time. 
In  the  fall  of  1869,  after  the  transfer  of  the  theo- 
logical department  to  St.  Louis,  the  preparatory  school 
was  transformed  into  an  up-to-date  gymnasium 
modelled  after  the  German  ideal.  In  accordance  with 
certain  agreements  the  Missouri  Synod  sent  students 
of  the  Western  District  to  W^atertown,  and  engaged 


»"  Hoermann,   A.:     "I'nsT    N"..>rthwestein    rullege,"    Mi'v.c\ikre,    1915. 


330  OTHKR    PARTS    OF    THE    SVX.    CONF.  §    25,1,** 

Prof.  F.  W.  Steilhom  as  their  instructor.  But  the 
joint  enterprise  did  not  prove  satisfactory  to  Wis- 
consin, and  by  mutual  consent  Stellhorn  and  the  Mis- 
souri students  were  transferred  to  Fort  Wayne,  his 
place  at  Watertown  having  been  filled  by  Dr.  F.  W.  A. 
Notz,  of  Muehlenberg  College.  Dr.  A.  F.  Ernst  i^  at 
present  president  of  the  institution,  which  is  attended 
by  some  230  students. 

6.     Concerning   Missions   and    General   Statistics. 

a.  Home  Missions.  During  one  decade,  1850  to 
1860,  915,667  German  immigrants  arrived  in  this  coun- 
try, 69%  of  whom  settled  in  Wisconsin.  To  serve 
these  scattered  people  the  Wisconsin  Synod  decided  to 
send  itinerant  preachers.  Pastor  G.  Fachtmann  trav- 
elled from  Horicon  and  Beaver  Dam  as  far  as  Green 
Bay,  and  his  successor.  Pastor  Moldehnke,  to  the 
boundary  line  of  Iowa  and  Minnesota.  Wherever 
the  latter  went  he  arranged  for  Sunday-schools  and 
lay  services.  Personally  he  served  22  preaching  sta- 
tions. In  1867  Pastor  Thiele  was  engaged  for  a 
brief  period.  Even  to-day  many  congregations  bear 
witness  to  the  blessed  work  done  by  these  itinerant 
ministers.  At  present  the  Wisconsin  Synod  is  doing 
some  work  in  Washington,  Oregon,  Idaho  and 
Arizona. 

b.  Foreign  Missions.  Among  the  Indians.  Since 
1893  the  synod  has  been  doing  missionary  work  among 
the  Apaches  of  the  White  Mountain  Reservation 
(Arizona),  employing  4  missionaries,  three  interpreters 
and  an  instructress,  all  being  engaged  in  work  at 
Globe,  San  Carlos,  Fort  Apache  and  Cibecue,  It  has 
four  mission  schools  in  which  dinner  is  served  free. 


§    2=),l,^'  THE    WISCONSIN    SYNOD.  331 

For  this  mission  the  synod  raised  $16,189  from  1911  to 
1913.     Pastor  G.  Harders  is  superintendent. 

Among-  the  Negroes:  Together. with  Missouri,  the 
Wisconsin  Synod  since  1879  has  been  supporting  a 
mission  among  negroes  extending  over  Virginia, 
North  CaroHna.  South  CaroHna,  Mississippi,  Missouri, 
llHnois  and  Arkansas.  In  Greensboro,  N.  C,  it  helps 
to  maintain  a  seminary  with  55  students  and  at  New 
Orleans  a  college  with  26  scholars. 

c.  Statistics.  According  to  latest  reports  (1914), 
Wisconsin  has  319  pastors,  365  congregations,  85 
preaching  stations,  153,521  communicants,  118  teach- 
ers, 80  women  teachers;  310  parish  schools,  36,112 
scholars.  In  the  higher  institutions  of  learning  there 
are  300  students  and  15  teachers.  Its  collections  for 
missions  amounted  to  $48,187,  for  congregational  pur- 
poses $215,413.  Its  church  property  is  worth 
$1,500,000.  Sy nodical  periodicals:  "Gemeindeblatt". 
"Theologische  Ouartalschrift"  and  "Northwestern 
Lutheran".  The  Northwestern  Publishing  House  is 
located  at  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Biographical  Notes. 

President  J.  F.  Bading  was  born  November  24.  1824,  at 
Ri.xdorf,  near  Berlin.  As  a  youth  he  read  the  words  of  the 
divine  command  to  preach  and  baptize  inscribed  over  the 
door  of  a  house.  This  caused  him  to  become  a  minister. 
Received  in  Berlin  as  a  student  of  the  Mission  House,  he 
later  went  to  Hermannsburg,  Hanover,  on  account  of  revo- 
lutionary conditions  in  the  capitol.  He  came  in  contact 
with  the  Rhenish  Missionary  Society,  and  was  sent  to  Amer- 
ica by  the  Langcnberg  Society.  Welcomed  by  President 
Muehlhaeuser,  he  received  his  ordination  October  6,  1853. 
He  raised  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  synod,  and  became 
one   of   the    founders   of    the    Watertown    seminary   in    the 


332  OTHER    PARTS    OF    THE    SYN.    CONF.         §    25. 11/ 

interest  of  which  he  started  on  a  fund-raising  trip  through 
Europe.  He  was  pastor  at  Calumet,  Wis.,  1853-1854;  The- 
resa, Wis.,  1854-1860;  Watertown,  Wis.,  1860-1868;  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.,  1868-1908;  President  of  Wisconsin  S3'nod, 
1860-1864  and  1866-1889;  President  of  the  Synodical  Confer- 
ence, 1882-1912.     He  died  May  24,  1913,  aged  88. 

Prof.  A.  Hoenecke,  D.  D.,  son  of  a  superintendent  of  a 
hospital  at  Brandenburg,  Prussia,  was  born  February  25, 
1835.  At  the  suggestion  of  an  unchurchly  music  master,  he 
studied  theology  at  Halle  under  Tholuck,  Mueller  and  Hup- 
feld,  being  engaged  at  the  same  time  as  instructor  in  the 
Franckean  Institute.  After  having  passed  his  examination 
pro  candidatura,  he  became  private  tutor  in  the  home  of 
Von  Wattenwyl,  near  Bern  in  Switzerland.  In  September, 
1862,  he  placed  his  services  at  the  disposal  of  the  Berlin 
Missionary  Society,  his  attention  having  been  called  to  the 
spiritual  needs  of  Lutherans  in  America.  He  was  ordained 
in  the  Magdeburg  Cathedral,  and  left  Europe  November  18, 

1862.  In  Wisconsin  he  temporarily  filled  the  place  of  Presi- 
dent  Bading,   and   accepted  a   call  to  Farmington,  Wis.,   in 

1863.  From  1866  to  1870  he  was  professor  at  the  Watertown 
Seminary  and  afterwards  pastor  of  St.  Matthew's,  Mil- 
waukee. From  1878  until  his  death  (January  3,  1908)  he  was 
professor  of  dogmatics  in  the  Wauwatosa  Seminary.  On 
the  8th  of  September,  1903,  he  received,  on  the  occasion 
of  his  25th  anniversary  as  theological  professor,  the  D.  D. 
degree.  His  main  literary  work  on  Lutheran  Dogma  is 
being  edited  by  his  sons.  He  was  no  doubt  the  most  emi- 
nent personality  in  the  history  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod. 


II.    THE  MINNESOTA  SYNOD. 
1.     Origin   and   Organization. 

After  land  values  in  Wisconsin  had  increased  with 
the  growing-  influx  of  population,  the  stream  of  Ger- 
man and  Scandinavian  immigration,  largely  Lutheran, 
began  to  turn  to  Minnesota,  the  attractive  State  of 


§    J5-I^''  "^"^    MINNESOTA    SVNOD.  333 

forests  and  lakes.  It  seemed  natural  that  the  Wis- 
consin Synod  would  take  care  of  these  people  by 
establishing"  a  district  synod.  But  although  Pastor 
Moldehnke"^-  by  his  missionary  trips  did  a  great  deal 
toward  relieving  the  religious  situation,  the  Wisconsin 
Synod  was  handicapped  in  any  organized  effort  by  its 
many  and  pressing  demands  at  home.-" 

The  attention  of  Eastern  synods  was  called  to  this 
promising  field  by  Dr.  W.  A.  Passavant,  who,  jour- 
neying from  Chicago  to  St.  J'aul  (1856)  by  way  of 
La  Crosse  and  Red  Wing,  aimed  to  establish  an 
English  Lutheran  Church.-**  Finding  the  German 
Lutherans  predominant,  he  caused  Rev.  C.  F.  Heyer 
(§  12,  2;  §  20,  3),  in  spite  of  his  advanced  years,  to 
become  pioneer  missionary  of  Minnesota. 

The  latter  arrived  in  St.  Paul  July  25,  1855,  as 
an  emissar}-  of  the  Home  Mission  Board  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod.  In  this  city  a  Lutheran  church  (Trinity) 
had  been  previously  founded  (July  25,  1855)  by  F.  W. 
\\'ier,  a  pupil  of  Gossner.  Hcyer  who  had  organizing 
talents  gathered  a  number  of  clergymen  (Thompson, 
Mallison.  Wier,  Blumcr.  Brandt)  and  founded  at  St. 
Paul  in  the  summer  of  1860  the  Synod  of  Minnesota. 
The   largest   ministerial  supply   to   this   synod   came 


'"An  attractive  description  of  this  missionary  journey  is  found 
in  a  series  of  articles  in  "Ansiedler  im  Westen,"  a  monthly  edited  by 
tlie  Berlin  Society  for  the  propagation  of  German  missions  in  North 
America,  186S.  pp.  68.  "9,  90.  See  also  "Dcr  Lutherische  Ilerold,"  1R6S, 
No.   IR,    sq. ;    Nine    Weeks   in    Minnesota. 

-"  Jaliresbcricht  dcr  lU-riiner  Gcscllscliaft  fucr  die  deutsch-cvan- 
gclischc   Mission   in   Anicrika,   1865,   p.   8. 

***  Cicrberding,  Ct.  II.:  "Life  and  Letters  of  \V.  A.  Passavant,"  Green- 
ville, 1906  pp.  361-369.  Also  Trabert,  G.  II.:  "English  Luthcranism  in 
the    Northwest,"    Philadelphia,    1914,    pp.    19-22. 


334  OTHER    PARTS   OF   THE   SYN.    CONF.         §    25,11,^ 

from  St.  Chrischona  near  Basel,  a  pilgrims'  mission 
conducted  by  C.  F.  Spittler.^*^ 

2.     Confessional  Position. 

At  first  the  synod  adhered  to  the  doctrinal  laxity 
of  the  General  Synod,  to  which  it  belonged  until  1866. 
By  a  formal  recognition  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession,  it  claimed  the  name  of  the  great  Reformer, 
while  in  reality  it  tolerated  the  widest  possible  incon- 
sistency between  theory  and  practice.  However,  when 
President  J.  H.  Sieker'-**'  was  admitted  into  the  synod, 
the  doctrinal  standard  was  greatly  improved.  Dis- 
cussions with  Missouri  and  a  closer  relationship  with 
Wisconsin  helped  to  clear  the  atmosphere.  At  a  pri- 
vate conference,  held  at  St.  Paul,  during  which  Prof. 
S.  Fritschel  assailed  the  doctrinal  position  of  the  'Gen- 
eral Synod,  Minnesota  changed  its  attitude.  To-day 
it  is  a  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  in  the 
founding  of  which   (1872)   it  took  a  prominent  part. 

3.     Relation  With  the  General  Council. 

When  in  1866  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  called  all 
truly  Lutheran  synods  to  a  conference  at  Reading, 
Pa.,  the  Minnesota  Synod  was  one  of  those  which 
helped  to  form  the  General  Council.  But  it  soon 
learned,  to  its  disappointment,  that  the  Council  did  not 
occupy  a  flawless  doctrinal  position.  This  became  ap- 
parent, when  President  Sicker,  upon  the  request  of 
his  synod,  addressed  some  questions  to  the  Council 
which  forced  the  latter  to  give  an  explicit  account  of 


2«Mgebroff,  J.:  "Geschichte  der  Ersten  Deutschen  Evangelisch- 
Lutherischen  Synode  in  Texas,"  Cliicago,  1902,  pp.  12-22;  C.  F.  Spittler 
und  die  Pilgermission  St.  Chrischona. 

-"Roesener,  P.:     "Ehrendenkmal,"  West  Roxbury,  1905,  p.  44. 


§    JS.II.^  '""-    MINNF.SOTA    SYNOD.  335 

the  Pittsburg  declaration  (1869-1870).  In  the  name 
of  the  Minnesota  Synod  Sieker  re(iuested,  in  view  of 
disagreements  within  the  Council  concerning  the  Four 
Points,  an  explanation  of  the  final  decision  accepted 
at  Pittsburg.     He  wish  to  know: 

1.  Whether  heretics  and  fundamental  errorists 
can  be  admitted  to  our  altars  as  communicants  and 
into  our  pulpits  as  teachers  of  congregations. 

2.  Since  the  so-called  distinctive  doctrines,  by 
wdiich  doctrinal  (Opposition  between  the  Lutheran 
Church  and  other  denominations  is  e.xpressed,  are 
fundamental,  whether  the  General  Council  (in  No. 
Ill,  1,  and  No.  IV,  1,  2  of  the  declarations  made  at 
Pittsburg)  understood  by  "fundamental  errorists" 
those  who,  with  regard  to  these  distinctive  doctrines, 
are  not  in  harmony  with  the  pure  doctrine  of  the 
Word  of  (jod  as  it  is  confessed  and  taught  in  our 
Church.-*' 

The  first  question  was  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
indicating  that  those  dissenting  from  Lutheran 
teaching  were  not  to  have  fellowship  of  altar  and 
pulpit.  Regarding  the  second  question,  however,  the 
Council,  while  admitting  that  the  "distinctive  doc- 
trines" were  of  fundamental  value  and  that  those 
not  in  accord  with  them  were  "fundamental  errorists," 
made  a  distinction  between  malicious,  persistent  and 
intentional  oflFenders  and  others  who  were  erring 
unconsciously  and  through  weakness.-"  The  Minne- 
sota Synod,  realizing  that  this  lukewarm  position 
would  eventually  lead  to  unionism,  severed  its  relation 
with  the  General  Council  in  1871. 


•^- Oi-hscnford.    .'^.    E.:      "Dociimcnf.-iry    History,"   pp.   334-336. 
'*" -N'iciim,  J.:   "(Ii-schichtc  des  Ministcriums  von  New   \ork,"    Head- 
ing'.  1888,  p.  280. 


336  OTHER    PARTS    OF    THE    SVN.    CONF.         §    25,11;' 

4.     State  Synods. 

Recognizing  the  disadvantage  of  different  synods 
simultaneously  working  in  the  same  state  (though 
they  be  synods  of  the  same  doctrinal  position),  the 
question  of  state  synods  was  under  discussion  for 
seven  years.  While  a  part  of  the  synod  favored  a 
change  which  would  make  it  a  district  synod  of 
Missouri,  the  majority,  disapproving  of  a  number  of 
synods  in  one  State,  decided  for  State  synods.  Presi- 
dent Sieker,  always  working  toward  Missouri,  was 
called  to  St.  Matthew's,  New  York,  and  President 
A.  Kuhn,  being  of  a  different  opinion,  submitted  a 
proposition,  worked  out  in  conjunction  with  the  Wis- 
consin Synod,  which  prevented  a  merger  with  Mis- 
souri.-*^ Minnesota  was  permitted  to  make  use  of 
the  theological  seminary  maintained  by  the  Synod 
of  Wisconsin,  and  the  two  synods  formed  the  General 
Synod. 

5.     Concerning  Predestination. 

The  controversy  concerning  predestination,  which 
shook  the  very  foundations  of  American  Lutheranism 
in  the  early  eighties,  also  affected  the  Minnesota 
Synod.  With  the  exception  of  three  pastors  and  two 
congregations,  who  withdrew  from  the  synod  during 
the  conference  which  was  held  with  the  Wisconsin 
Synod  at  La  Crosse  in  1882,  the  ministerium  decided 
that  Article  XI  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  did  not 
pertain  to  a  predestination  in  the  larger,  but  in  the 
narrower  sense  of  the  term.  Like  other  synods, 
Minnesota  was  strengthened  in  its  doctrinal  position 
by  this  controversy. 

^^i*  Kuhn,  A.:  "Gescliichte  dtr  Minnesota  Synode,"  St.  Louis,  1910, 
pp.   31-32. 


§    25,11.*  THE    MINNESOTA    SVNOD.  337 

6.     Dr.   Martin   Luther   College. 

\\  hen  the  project  of  a  General  Seminary,  closely 
allied  with  the  idea  of  State  synods,  was  finally  aban- 
doned, the  synod  looked  favorably  toward  the  estab- 
lishment of  its  own  educational  institution.  The  name 
"Dr.  Martin  Luther  College,"  dedicated  Nov.  10,  1884. 
was  given  to  the  New  Ulm  institution,  because  the 
plan  for  its  erection  had  been  conceived  on  the  400th 
anniversary  of  the  birtli  of  Luther.  This  institution, 
at  first  merely  an  academy  and  a  pro-gymnasium,  was 
later  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  a  practical  theo- 
logical seminary.  The  theological  department  was 
abandoned,  however,  after  the  union  of  the  synods 
of  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin.  The  college,  which  is 
now  a  teachers'  seminary  for  the  General  Synod,  has 
9  professors  and  111  scholars. 

Conclusion.  Tiie  Minnesota  Synod  consists  of  104 
pastors  and  professors,  113  congregations,  50  preach- 
ing stations  and  25.547  communicants. 


III.    THE    MICHIGAN     SYNOD. 
1.     Preliminary  History. 

The  settlement  of  Wuertemberg  immigrants""  in 
1831,  not  far  from  the  present  Ann  Arbor,  meant  the 
beginning  of  Lutheranism  in  the  State  of  Michigan. 
Complying  with  a  request  addressed  to  them,  the 
Basel  Mission  sent  a  young  man,  Friedrich  Schmid, 
a  native  of  Wuertemberg,  to  minister  to  these  people. 

•^"Eikhoff,  A.:  "In  der  neuen  Hcimat,"  New  York,  1884,  p.  376- 
37i;  sec  Kohl,  Rcisen  im  Nordwesten  dcr  Vereinigten  Staaten,  New 
Vork,  1857. 

22 


338  OTHER   PARTS    OF   THE    SYN.    CONF.      §    25,111/ 

Schmid,  having  arrived  in  Detroit  after  a  journey  of 
eight  weeks,  held  the  first  Lutheran  service  in  Michi- 
gan'" August  18,  1833.  When  later  F.  P.  Schw^abe  and 
J.  H.  Mann  arrived,  the  first  Michigan  synod,  called 
the  Mission  Synod,  was  founded  and  organized. 

2.     Loehe's  Missionaries. 

Some  missionaries  sent  out  by  Loehe  united  with 
this  synod.  Neuendettelsau  justified  such  a  step,  be- 
cause the  Michigan  Synod  had  already  planned  to 
extend  its  work  to  the  Indians.  Convinced  that  this 
was  an  opportunity  for  combining  home  and  foreign 
missions,  by  having  the  Gospel  preached  to  the 
heathen  by  congregations  surrounding  them,  Loehe 
placed  his  Indian  mission,  founded  by  F.  A.  Craemer, 
under  the  control  of  the  Michigan  Synod.-'-  But 
confessional  controversies  soon  disturbed  this  relation. 
While  the  Michigan  Synod  recognized  the  Lutheran 
Symbols,-'^  it  permitted  common  services  for  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  congregations,  and  did  not  object 
to  the  communion  formula  of  the  Prussian  Union, 
When  Pastor  Dumser,  who  rejected  the  Lutheran 
point  of  view,  was  made  missionary  to  the  Indians 
over  the  protest  of  Loehe's  disciples.  Pastors  Hatt- 
staedt,  Craemer,  Lochner  and  Trautmann,  by  a  solemn 
documentary  statement,-^*  withdrew  from  the  Michi- 


-'-^  Deutsch  Amerikanische  Geschichtsblaetter,  herausgegeben  von 
der  Deutsch-Amerikanischen  Historischen  Gesellschaft  von  Illinois,  Vol. 
9,  No.  4,  pp.   122-130;  Das  Leben  und  Wirken  von  Pastor  Schmid. 

^'-Deindoerfer,  J.:  "Geschichte  der  Iowa  Synode,"  Chicago,  1897, 
p.  11-12;  See  Mayer,  C.  A.:  "Geschichte  der  St.  Lorenz  Gemeinde  zu 
Frankenmuth,  Mich.,"  St.  Louis,  1895,  p.  10. 

"3  Kirchliche  Mitteilungen  aus  und  ueber  Nordaraerika,  1845,  Nos. 
1  and  5. 

^^  Hochstetter,  C.:  "Geschichte  der  Missouri  Synode,"  Dresden, 
1885,  pp.  138-142. 


§    25.111.''  THE    MICHIGAN    SYNOD.  339 

j;an  Synod  (June  25,  1846).  which  shortly  afterwards 
ceased  to  exist  (cf.  §  22,  3). 

3.     Organization   and    Confesaional    Position. 

With  the  growth  of  coiigTcgations  Schmid  con- 
ceived the  plan  of  a  new  organization,  and  com- 
municated with  Inspector  Josenhans  of  the  Basel 
Mission  relative  to  a  synod  of  Michigan  modelled 
after  the  doctrinal  standards  of  Wucrtcmberg.  Thus 
on  Dec.  10,  1860  the  second  Michigan  Synod  was 
founded  at  Detroit  with  eight  pastors  under  the 
presidency  of  Schmid.  Two  emissaries  from  Basel, 
Stephan  Klin.gmann  and  Christian  L.  Eberhardt,  laid 
a  solid  doctrinal  foundation,  the  nature  of  which  may 
be  judged  by  the  following  statement :  "The  Ev. 
Luth.  Synod  of  Michigan  obligates  itself  to  all  the 
canonical  books  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
as  the  sole  rule  and  standard  of  faith  and  life,  and 
to  all  the  books  of  our  Ev.  Luth.  Church  as  the 
true  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture."  "''• 

4.     Union    With    the    General    Council. 

Hoping  to  secure  a  better  ministerial  supply  by 
joining  some  larger  church  organization,  the  Michi- 
gan Synod  united  with  the  General  Council  in  1867. 
At  that  time  there  was  no  German  theological  semi- 
nary within  this  body,  and  the  Council  proposed  to 
assist  Michigan  by  encouraging  the  students  from 
Kropp  (§  20,  1)  to  take  up  work  in  the  Michigan 
Synod."''     Michigan  objected  to  the  Akron  decletra- 

-■*  "Geschichte   der   Michigan    Synorle,"    Saginaw.    1910,   p.   6. 
"^Fritschel,  G.  J.:    "Geschichte  der  Lutherischen   Kirche  in   .\mcr 
ika,"  Guetcrsloh.   1S97.     Vol.   II,  p.  411. 


340  OTHER    PARTS   OF   THE   SYN.    CONF.      §    25,111,* 

tion  (§  18,  1)  adopted  by  the  General  Council,  and 
preferred  the  simpler  Galesburg  Rule.-^^  It  re- 
mained in  this  attitude  of  protest  until  1888,  when 
the  convention  of  the  General  Council  was  held  at 
Zion's  Church,  Monroe  (a  parish  connected  with  the 
Michigan  Synod),  where  two  of  the  Council's  pastors 
occupied  Presbyterian  pulpits.  Since  all  protests 
proved  futile,  the  relation  of  the  two  synods,  which 
had  extended  over  a  period  of  20  years,  was 
terminated. 

5.     Union  With  the  General  Synod  and  the  Synodical 
Conference. 

After  withdrawing  from  the  General  Council,  the 
Michigan  Synod  aimed  to  unite  with  the  Synodical 
Conference.  This  plan  was  carried  out  in  1891,  after 
Michigan,  together  with  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin, 
had  founded  the  General  Synod.  In  1891  President 
C.  A.  Lederer  and  Director  F.  Huber  went  to 
Minnesota  in  behalf  of  their  synod  to  confer  con- 
cerning a  prospective  field  for  missionary  activity. 
On  this  occasion  they  met  ofificers  of  the  Minnesota 
Synod,  who  contemplated  a  new  organization  for  con- 
centrated efiforts  in  the  Northern  field.  Michigan, 
desirous  of  strengthening  its  influence  and  feeling 
the  need  of  a  more  thorough  training  of  its  min- 
isters, participated  in  the  movement.  Delegates  were 
sent  to  a  convention,  held  at  Milwaukee,  April  21, 
1891,  where  preliminaries  were  arranged  for  the  pros- 
pective organization  of  the  General  Synod.  Here 
it  was  agreed  that  before  Michigan  should  unite 
with  Wisconsin   and   Minnesota,   it   should   first  be- 


"^"  Ochsenford:     Dociinicntary   History,   p.   342. 


§    25.111  Till-:    MICHIGAN    SYNOD.  34I 

come  a  member  of  the  Synodical  Conference.  This 
was  done  in  the  summer  of  1892  at  the  regular  con- 
vention of  the  Synodical  Conference.  During  the 
following  fall  the  General  Synod  was  founded  and 
organized. 

6.     Division   and   Founding  of  the   Michigan  District. 

In  consequence  of  this  union  with  the  General 
Synod,  the  seminary  at  Saginaw  was  transformed 
into  a  gymnasium.  This  caused  a  division  in  the 
synod.  The  majority,  favoring  the  retention  as  a 
theological  seminary  of  the  Saginaw  institution,  sus- 
pended the  minority  of  10  opposing  them.  The  latter 
organized  the  district-synod  of  Michigan  and  con- 
tinued to  fulfill  their  obligations  toward  the  Synodical 
Conference  and  the  General  Synod. 

7.     Union  With  the  Augsburg  Synod. 

After  withdrawing  from  the  Synodical  Conference, 
the  Michigan  Synod  united  with  the  Augsburg  Synod 
in  1897.  The  latter  was  merely  a  Conference,  ex- 
tending over  a  number  of  States,  of  some  independent 
congregations.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  the  doc- 
trinal position  of  these  two  bodies  was  altogether 
incompatible,  and  in  1900  their  relntioimliip  ceased. 

8.     Adjustment  of  Differences  and  Present  Status. 

Thus  isolated,  the  Michigan  Synod  considered  a 
return  to  the  Synodical  Conference,  and,  after  having 
withdrawn  the  suspension  of  the  minority,  decided 
for  the  reunioit.  The  synod  has  at  present  43  pastors 
and  professors,  51  congregations.  8.290  communicants 
and  2,670  voting  members. 


342  OTHER    PARTS    OF   THE   SYN.    CONF.         §    25, IV 

IV.    THE  DISTRICT  SYNOD  OF  NEBRASKA. 

Eleven  pastors  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  residing 
in  Nebraska,  met  at  St.  John's  Church,  Firth,  August 
29,  1901,  for  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  from  the 
mother  synod  and  of  forming  an  independent  district. 
To  avoid  misunderstandings  as  to  the  power  of  the 
President  relative  to  the  new  organization,  the 
daughter-synod  was  advised  to  unite  as  an  independent 
body  with  the  Wisconsin,  Minnesota  and  Michigan 
Synods.  Thus  the  German  Ev.  Luth.  District  Synod 
of  Nebraska  was  organized,  Aug.  25,  1904.  During 
the  following  year  it  united  with  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference. It  is  particularly  active  in  its  missionary 
work,  which  extends  to  South  Dakota.  According  to 
latest  statistics  it  has  21  ministers,  3  teachers,  22 
congregations,  14  preaching  stations,  800  voting  mem- 
bers and  1,600  communicants.  During  the  past  year 
it  raised  $40,210  for  current  expenses  and  $25,725 
for  synodical  purposes. 


§  26.    The  Slovak  Synod. 

This  is  a  small  body  consisting  of  23  pastors,  59 
congregations  and  8,000  communicants.  It  was 
founded  in  1906  by  pastors  who  had  arrived  from 
Hungary  and  others  who  had  been  trained  in  Mis- 
souri institutions  or  had  come  out  of  the  Missouri 
Synod.  They  served  Slovak  congregations,  organized 
a  district  and  united  with  the  Synodical  Conference. 
Additional  ministers  from  Hungary  arrived  later,  some 
of  them  taking  a  theological  course  in  Missouri  semi- 
naries.   The  majority  of  the  pastors  are  being  trained 


§26  THE    SLOVAK    SYNOD.  343 

in  the  seminary  at  Springfield,  111.,  where  for  a  time 
a  Slovak  professor  was  a  member  of  the  faculty. 

Note:  Here  closes  the  contribution  of  the  Kev.  O. 
Engel. 

§  27.     Practice  of  the  Synodical  Conference. 

1.  In  the  matter  of  church  polity  the  local  con- 
gregation holds  supreme  authority.  The  synod,  being 
a  human  and  not  a  divine  institution,  and  existing 
merely  for  practical  reasons,  is  the  voluntary  con- 
ference of  congregational  representatives.  Entitled  to 
vote  are  only  pastors  and  laymen  who  speak  for  a 
congregation.  Pastors  emeriti,  professors  and  synod- 
ical officers  have  merely  advisory  power.  But  even 
the  synod,  properly  constituted  by  representatives 
of  congregations,  is  only  an  advisory  organization.-'® 
"No  synodical  decree  is  binding  ...  it  becomes 
so  only,  after  the  individual  congregation  by  a  formal 
resolution  has  adopted  and  ratified  it.  Should  a  con- 
gregation find  a  synodical  resolution  incompatible  with 
the  Word  of  God  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of 
expediency,  it  has  a  right  to  ignore  or  reject  it" 
(Grosse,  Distinctive  Doctrines,  p.  131).  Again:  "The 
synod  has  no  pow.er  to  call  ministers  or  to  depose 
them.  This  is  properly  the  function  of  the  con- 
gregation. An  individual  congregation  may  trans- 
fer its  right  to  a  synodical  president  or  to  a  theo- 
logical faculty,  in  calling  a  pastor  or  in  the  trial  of 
ministers,  but   the   decision  of  a  possible  deposition 


^^  The  General  Synod,  the  General  Council  and  the  United  Synod 
of  the  South  have  made  a  similar  declaration,  but  it  refers  only  to 
the  General  Body,  not  to  the  district  synod,  while,  according  to  the 
-Synodical    Conference,    even    the    district    synod    has    merely    advisory 

functions. 


344  PRACTICES   OF   THE    SYN.    CONF.  §    2/,^ 

belongs  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  congregation" 
(Grosse,  p.  132).  However,  a  congregation,  not  re- 
specting a  synodical  resolution  pertaining  to  the  con- 
fession of  faith,  would  be  excommunicated,  because 
it  is  the  criterion  of  the  orthodox  church,  "to  exercise 
rigid  discipline  against  those  who  in  doctrine  and  life 
deviate  from  the  true  faith"  (^Grosse,  p.  126).  Thus 
the  independence  of  local  congregations  includes  only 
non-essential  points,  such  as  ceremonies,  management 
of  property,  oiterings,  congregational  customs,  etc. 
The  same  applies  to  the  trial  of  a  minister  whose  life 
and  teaching  do  not  harmonize  with  the  Word  of 
God.  Should  the  congregation  fail  to  act  against 
him,  both  pastor  and  flock  would  be  duly  excom- 
municated. 

2.  Doctrinal  Discipline.  Whoever  disagrees  with 
any  doctrinal  statement  of  the  synod,  whether  per- 
taining to  fundamental  or  peripherical  issues,  will  be 
excluded  from  synodical  fellowship. 

3.  Equally  consistent  is  its  attitude  toward 
Unionism.  Absolute  harmony  in  all  matters  of  doc- 
trine is  required  for  organic  cooperation.  "Open 
questions"  (§  23)  are  not  recognized,  unless  they  be 
questions  like  this:  "Was  the  world  created  on  a 
Sunday  or  on  a  Monday?"  Even  apart  from  organic 
union,  all  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship  with  those  dif- 
fering in  the  slightest  detail,  is  not  permissible.  Be- 
cause Loehe  did  not  agree  with  Missouri  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  the  ministry,  he  was  forced  to  sever 
his  relationship.  How  rigidly  consistent  Missouri's 
attitude  is  appears  from  the  fact  that  during  any 
doctrinal  conferences  between  Ohio  and  Missouri,  a 
common  prayer  is  considered  sinful  unionism,  inas- 


§    ZJ  rRACTlCES    OI'-    rilM    SVN.    (ONF.  345 

much  as  there   arc   doctrinal   differences   concerning 
predestination  and   coTiversion. 

4.  Secret  Societies.  Against  all  lodges,  and  es- 
pecially those  with  religious  professions,  Missouri 
takes  an  uncompromising  stand.  Grosse  (p.  55)  gives 
the  reasons  for  this  attitude,  notably  the  following: 

In  the  lodge  it  is  required  to  fraternize  with  Jews, 
heathen,  infidels  and  atheists. 

It  is  a  duty  to  bury  all  lodge  members  as  if  they  were 
saved.  No  Christian  can  join  in  lodge  prayers  oflFered 
during  the  meetings  or  at  funeral  services,  because  they  are 
not  addressed  to  the  triune  God  nor  to  Jesus  Christ,  but 
rather  to  a  fancied  idol. 

While  the  lodges  are  no  religious  societies,  they  have 
religious  tendencies.  They  would  make  men  better  without 
Christ.  Their  prayers,  constitutions  and  speeches  prove 
that  they  deny  the  total  depravity  of  man.  They  only 
recogniize  morality  and  their  morality  in  no  sense  exceeds 
that  of  the  pagan. 

There  arc  lodge  members  in  certain  Missouri  con- 
gregations, especially  in  larger  cities,  but  whenever 
a  conflict  arises  between  them  and  other  members 
of  the  congregation,  they  are  invariably  excommu- 
nicated. 

5.  It  is  a  praiseworthy  practice  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  that  it  frowns  on  all  worldly  amusements 
in  connection  with  the  church.  It  does  not  resort 
to  fairs,  bazars,  entertainments  and  parties  or  other 
worldly  means  of  raising  church  funds.  It  has  no 
use  for  Santa  Clans,  nor  any  undevotional  perform- 
ances in  the  sanctuary. 

6.  Care  of  Parochial  Schoolc.  Being  convinced 
that  the  State  has  no  business  to  teach  religion,  not 
even  to  encourage  prayers  or  Bible  readings  in  the 


346  PRACTICES   OF   THE   SYN.    CONF.  §    27 

schools  and  considering'  .the  Sunda3^-school  utterly 
inadequate  for  religious  instruction,  1)  because  of  the 
limited  time,  2)  because  of  incompetent  teachers,  the 
S3modical  Conference  maintains  parochial  schools, 
which  are  conducted  by  the  pastors  or  by  trained 
instructors.  A  congregation  in  Chicago  has  nine 
regularly  employed  teachers  and  929  scholars.  The 
morning  recitations  are  in  German,  the  afternoon 
studies  in  English.  The  course  provides  for  one  hour 
daily  of  BibHcal  history  and  one  hour  of  catechism. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

INDEPENDENT  SYNODS. 


§  28.     The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio. 

I.     Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Ohio  Synod. 

The  State  of  Ohio  was  admitted  into  the  Union  in 
1802,  and  as  early  as  1805  itinerant  preachers  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  (§  5,  3)  began  to  gather  the 
numerous  Lutherans  emigrating  at  that  time  from 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia.  The  counties  of  Fairfield, 
Terry,  Pickaway,  Montgomery,  Stark,  and  Jefferson 
especially  were  thickly  settled  with  Germans.  The 
tirst  two  preachers  in  the  held  were  George  Forster 
and  Johannes  Stauch.  In  October  1818,  the  Ohio 
Conference  was  reinforced  by  ten  additional  clergy- 
men, of  whom  Paul  Henkel,  the  great-grandson  of 
Gerhard  Henkel  (§  16),  was  the  most  eminent.  The 
Ohio  Conference,  now  a  part  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  met  annually.  But  as  it  had  no  right  to 
ordain  ministers,  but  merely  to  license  them,  and 
as  the  journey  to  the  "Mother  Synod"  necessary  for 
ordination  w^as  too  long  and  expensive,  it  asked  for 
permission  to  found  a  ministerium  of  its  own. 
This  request  being  granted,  it  organized  itself  into 
a  synod  Sept.  14,  1818,  at  Somerset,  Ohio,  which 
at  its  eighth  convention  chose  the  name,  "The  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Synod  of  Ohio  and  Adjoining  States." 
This  synod  adopted  the  "proposed  plan"  ( §§  7.  12)  in 

(347) 


34^  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS  I  §    28/ 

1819,  but  when,  in  1820,  it  learned  that  the  New  York 
Ministerium  and  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina  had 
refused  to  join  in  the  movement,  it  decided  to  re- 
main independent.  It  took  the  same  stand  in  1822. 
In  the  latter  case  its  delegates  to  the  General  Synod, 
though  elected,  were  not  sent,  because  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  had  announced  its  withdrawal. 

The  pastors  engaged  in  the  missionary  held  of 
Ohio  were  either  suppHed  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
or  had  received  their  training  under  ministers  in 
Ohio.  Now  and  then  a  candidate  arrived  from  Ger- 
many. As  many  Lutherans  came  from  the  Eastern 
States,  a  tendency  toward  a  transition  to  the  English 
was  soon  discernible.  Every  effort  was  made  to 
retain  the  German  by  organizing  German-English  and 
English  congregations.  In  1828  plans  were  proposed 
for  the  founding  of  a  theological  seminary  for  Ohio. 
The  lack  of  ministers  was  keenly  felt,  and  the  task 
of  supplying  vacant  charges  was  reaching  dimensions 
beyond  the  possibilities  of  the  small  number  of  min- 
isters. During  this  year  Wilhelm  Schmidt,  a  can- 
didate from  Halle,  was  sent  to  Ohio  by  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod.  He  declared  himself  willing  (1830) 
to  start  the  new  seminary,  and  submitted  a  course  of 
studies  which  was  approved.  In  the  fall  of  1830  the 
seminary  was  founded  under  his  leadership  in  the 
parsonage  at  Canton,  Ohio,  and  was  attended  by  two 
students.  In  1831  it  was  transferred  to  Columbus. 
The  same  year  the  synod  was  divided  into  an  Eastern 
and  a  Western  district,  to  which  in  1836  an  EngHsh 
district  was   added. 

After  the  death  of  Schmidt  in  1839  (at  the  age  of 
33),  Dr.  Demme,  of  Philadelphia,  was  chosen  as  his 


§    2S,^  THE    JOINT    SYNOD   OF    OHIO.  349 

successor.    As  Dcmme  declined,  Pastor  C.  F.  SchaefiFer 
(Hagerstovvn,  Md.)   took  charge  of  the  English  de- 
partment    and     (in     1841)     Pastor     Fried.     Winkler 
(Newark,  N.  J.)  of  the  German  department.    The  lat- 
ter, while  visiting  with  Pastor   Stohlmann,  of  New 
York,  met  two  young  men  who  had  just  arrived  from 
Germany  (Ernst  and  Burger),  and  prevailed  on  them 
to  go  with  him  to  Columbus.     In  this  way  a  relation- 
ship  was    established   with   the    Fatherland   and   the 
missionary  enterprise  of  Pastor  W.  Loehe.    Although 
in  1840  the  English  District  of  Ohio  united  with  the 
General  Synod,  there  still  remained  in  the  synod  a 
large  number  of  German  and  English-German  con- 
gregations.   The  influx  of  German  students  and  can- 
didates increased  the  confessional  party  of  the  Ohio 
clergy.     Dr.   W.    Sihler    became    the    leader    of    the 
conservatives,    who    objected    to    the    un-Lutheran 
method  of  licensing  ministers,  to  the  unionized  com- 
munion  service    ("Christ   says,"  etc)    imported   from 
the  General  Synod,  and  the  fact  that  not  all  the  Lu- 
theran   confessions    were    adopted.     They    demanded 
a  change  in  these   features.     Says  Pastor  Lehmann 
later  on :  "They  were  right  in  their  position ;  but  we 
could  have  co-operated  with  them  ten  years  sooner, 
had  they  acted  differently  in  their  demands."     Their 
just  demands  were  refused,  and  they  withdrew  from 
the  synod. 

This  action,  together  with  continued  attacks  on 
the  part  of  champions  of  the  so-called  "American 
Lutheranism,"  caused  the  synod  to  place  itself  more 
and  more  uncompromisin,<j^ly  on  a  confessional  basis. 
Pastors  Lehniann  and  Loy,  who  had  grown  up  with 
the   synod   and   were   held    in   great   esteem,   took   a 


350  INDEPENDENT    SYNODS:  §    28,^ 

leading  part  in  this  matter.  An  ever-increasing  immi- 
gration from  Germany  and  the  strong  Lutheranism 
of  its  great  rival,  the  Missouri  Synod,  also  influenced 
Ohio  to  declare,  two  years  after  the  v^fithdrawal  of  the 
Loehe  party,  its  unconditional  adherence  to  all  the 
Lutheran  Symbols  (1847).  With  the  grov^^ing  useful- 
ness of  the  seminary,  the  influx  of  theological  can- 
didates from  Germany  and  the  absorption  of  the  little 
Indianapolis  Synod,  the  Ohio  Synod  grew  rapidly.  In 
the  early  fifties  (1855,  1856,  1857  and  1858)  it  held  a 
number  of  conferences  with  Missouri,  and  thus  the 
influence  of  Missouri  increased. 

When  in  1866  the  "Mother  Synod"  invited  all 
synods  subscribing  to  the  Lutheran  Symbols  to  form 
the  General  Council,  Ohio  approved  of  the  projected 
constitution ;  but  it  charged  its  delegates  not  to  unite 
with  the  new  organization,  unless  that  body  would 
declare  its  attitude  concerning  the  "four  points/' 
namely,  altar  fellowship,  pulpit  fellowship,  secret 
societies  and  Chiliasm.  As  the  General  Council  re- 
fused to  do  this  and  as,  moreover,  the  English  Ohio 
District  was  admitted  to  the  new  organization,  Ohio 
decHned  to  unite  with  it.  Missouri  meanwhile  (1866) 
recognized  Ohio  as  an  orthodox  body,  and  planned 
the  founding  of  the  Synodical  Conference  in  whose 
deliberations  Ohio  took  part  (1871).  It  is  not  difficult 
to  trace  Missouri's  influence  in  Ohio's  synodical  dis- 
cussions. Ohio  stood  ready  to  sacrifice  its  identity 
and  its  seminary  to  a  general  genuinely  Lutheran 
synod.  This  favorite  project  of  Walther  might  have 
succeeded,  had  it  not  been  for  the  attitude  of  the 
Wisconsin  Synod.  In  1877  Ohio  instructed  the  board 
of  its  college  to  confer  the  degree  of  D.  D.  on  Walther, 


§    28/  THE    JOINT    SYNOD   OK   OHIO.  35 1 

and  in  1880  called  Frank,  a  Missourian,  in  preference 
to  Prof.  F.  W.  Stellhorn,  as  successor  to  Lehman  (suf- 
fering- with  cancer).  When  the  controversy  concern- 
ing- predestination  resulted  in  Loy's  siding  with  Prof. 
F.  A.  Schmidt,  Frank  resigned,  and  Stellhorn,  who 
had  vigorously  opposed  Walthcr  at  Chicago,  was  called 
in  his  place.  At  Wheeling  (1881)  the  synod  took  a 
stand  against  Missouri,  and  withdrew  from  the  Synod- 
ical  Conference. 

During  the  following  years  Ohio  grew  very  rapidly, 
largely  because  the  controversy  with  Missouri  had 
opened  for  it  the  Western  and  the  Northwestern 
territory,  where  some  men  and  churches  had  with- 
drawn from  Missouri  and  had  joined  the  Ohio  Synod 
as  a  new  district.  Soon  the  practical  department  of 
the  Columbus  Seminary  was  transferred  to  Afton 
(later  to  St.  Paul). 

In  the  course  of  time,  especially  through  neighbor- 
ing spheres  of  work,  Ohio  and  Iowa  came  into  touch 
with  each  other.  As  early  as  1883  Prof.  Gottfried 
Fritschel  arranged  for  a  private  conference  between 
the  leaders  of  these  two  synods,  but  apparently 
without  result.  In  1893  a  colloquium  took  place  in 
Michigan  City,  Ind.,  where  certain  theses  were  adopted 
relative  to  Iowa's  doctrinal  position.  These  theses, 
however,  did  not  fully  satisfy  either  Ohio  and  low^a ; 
they  led  to  a  second  colloquium  (1908).  held  in  Toledo, 
Ohio,  where  theses  were  adopted  which  proved 
acceptable  to  all  concerned.  Ohio  and  Iowa  maintain 
church  fellowship,  although  Iowa's  relation  to  the 
General  Council  is  not  altogether  to  Ohio's  liking. 


352  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS:  §    28,^ 

2.  Synodical  Controversies. 
a.  Against  Unionism.  The  Ohio  Synod,  being  a 
child  of  the  time,  emerged  only  by  a  slow  develop- 
ment from  a  lukewarm  Lutheranism  to  a  rigid  con- 
fessionalism.  It  was  a  child  of  that  time,  and  shared 
the  doctrinal  position  of  the  "Mother-Synod"  (§  8,  2), 
whence  it  received  its  ministerial  supply.  While  it 
did  not  take  part  in  the  forming  of  the  General  Synod, 
it  refrained  from  doing  so,  not  on  account  of  the 
doctrinal  scruples  which  deterred  Tennessee,  but  be- 
cause it  did  not  feel  the  need  of  a  general  organi- 
zation. Although  the  "proposed  plan"  was  acceptable 
to  Ohio,  it  did  not  join  the  movement  because  it 
learned  that  not  all  synods  would  join  the  new  body. 
In  1823  resolutions  were  adopted  in  favor  of  such  a 
union,  but  the  matter  was  not  consummated,  because 
it  was  learned  that  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  was  about 
to  withdraw.  Ohio  shared  the  ambiguity  of  the 
time.  As  late  as  1839  it  was  willing  to  unite  with 
the  Reformed.  But  the  doctrinal  struggle  between 
"American  Lutheranism,"  advocating  the  new  meas- 
ures, on  the  one  hand,  and  a  more  positive  wing,  on  the 
other,  clarified  the  atmosphere  for  a  healthier  point 
of  view.  This  conflict  caused  the  withdrawal  of  the 
English  District  (§  9,  1)  and  its  subsequent  union 
with  the  General  Synod.  Thus  the  English  work 
had  to  be  resumed  by  the  conservative  element.  This 
was  difficult,  because  the  English  speaking  clergy 
were  generally  tainted  with  "American  Lutheranism," 
while  the  German  and  the  German-English  congre- 
gations held  to  a  more  conservative  position.  The 
synodical  records  bear  witness  to  this  struggle  which, 


§    2S,-  Till-:    JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO.  353 

in  its  confessional  tendencies,  was  reinforced  by  the 
influences  of  T.oeho  ;ind  his  followers.  The  English 
clergy  withdrew  again  in  1855.  and  united  with  the 
General  S>nod  as  a  separate  district.  This  occurred 
a  third  time,  when  the  English  District  became  a  part 
of  the  Oeneral  Council.  But  these  repeated  with- 
drawals of  tlie  English  elements  strengthened  the 
doctrinal  position  of  the  Ohio  Synod.  In  opposition 
to  the  General  Synod,  it  declared  in  1848  for  alle- 
giance to  all  the  Symbolical  Books.  It  drew  inspira- 
tion from  conferences  with  Missouri  (1854-1858). 
^^''hen  the  General  Council  was  organized  (1866). 
Ohio  declared  its  approval  of  the  doctrinal  platform 
adopted  by  it.  but  insisted  that  theoretical  correct- 
ness should  be  followed  by  a  consistent  practice 
Cthe  "Four  Points"V  The  General  Council's  unwil- 
lingness to  comply  with  this  request  caused  Ohio 
to  drift  toward  Missouri,  which  synod  recognized 
Ohio's  position  as  orthodox  n868). 

b.  The  opposition  of  the  Ohio  Synod  against 
secret  societies  is  all  the  more  noteworthy  because 
this  synod,  being  largely  composed  of  members  of 
Eastern  synods  who  had  moved  to  the  West,  was 
confronted  with  the  problem  of  lodges  much  more 
seriously  than  synods  dealing  with  immigrants  from 
the  old  country.  The  matter  was  first  discussed  in 
1852  by  the  conference  of  the  Western  District,  ;iiid 
since  that  has  been  repeatedly  dealt  v,  ith.  -'^ 

c.  Against  Missouri's  doctrine  of  predestination. 
As  has  been   said,   with   confessionalism   in   tiic   Ohio 


=*See  "Synodalceschichtc."  by    Pctcr  and   Schmidt,  pp.   126.  128,   l.W, 
144,   191.   264. 

23 


354  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS  :  §    28,^ 

Synod,  came  closer  relations  with  Missouri.  When 
the  Synodical  Conference  was  organized  in  1872,  Ohio 
participated  in  the  movement,  and  was  even  willing 
to  surrender  its  identity  to  this  body  in  case  other 
synods  would  do  likewise.  But  ten  years  afterwards 
it  withdrew  from  the  Synodical  Conference  (Wheel- 
ing, W.  Va.,  1881),  because  it  objected  to  Walther's 
theory  of  election.  119  Ohio  ministers  voted  for  and  19 
against  withdrawal.  While  the  majority  of  the  latter 
joined  Missouri,  Ohio  was  strengthened  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  Missourian  doctrine  in  Minnesota, 
Wisconsin  and  Missouri.  -^^ 

The  difference  between  Missouri  and  Ohio  may 
be  summarized  in  the  following  Four  Points: 

1.  Ohio  teaches  that  God's  decree  of  election  is 
none  other  than  the  universal  counsel  of  grace  re- 
vealed in  the  Gospel:  "He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved."  Missouri,  on  the  contrary,  as- 
serts that  there  are  two  entirely  distinct  decrees,  be- 
tween which  an  analogy  is  not  even  to  be  looked  for. 

2.  Ohio  teaches  that  the  conversion  of  men  and 
their  preservation  in  the  faith  are  the  result  of  the 
general  benevolent  will,  and  not  of  the  decree  of 
election,  if  the  latter  word  is  taken  in  its  narrowest 
sense ;  that  election,  in  the  foreknowledge  of  God, 
presupposes  faith ;  and  that  God  elected  intuitu  fidei. 
Missouri,  on  the  contrary,  maintains  that  from  the 
general  benevolent  will  there  could  at  best  result 
only  a  temporary  faith  ;    that  a  steadfast  and  really 


'""  A  vivid  description  of  the  synodical  transactions  at  Wheeling, 
together  with  a  reprint  of  the  resolutions  pertaining  to  the  viewpoint 
of  Ohio,  may  be  found  in  the  volume  of  Peter  and  Schmidt,  pp.  227-238, 


§    28,-'  Tllli   JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO.  355 

saving  faith  can  flow  only   from  election ;    and  that 
God  elects  unto  faith. 

3.  Missouri  further  maintains  that  the  reason  why 
God  has  not  elected  all  men,  or  why  He  has  elected 
some  and  not  others,  is  an  unfathomable  mystery ; 
and  that  therefore  it  is  impossible  to  harmonize  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  with  the  universal  promises 
of  the  Gospel.  Ohio,  on  the  other  hand,  maintains 
that  we  have  here  not  a  theological,  but  an  anthropo- 
logical or  psychological  mystery ;  that  the  reason 
why  God  has  chosen  only  a  few  is  revealed,  and 
is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  men  wilfully 
and  persistently  resist  His  Holy  Spirit ;  but  why 
among  human  beings  who  are  all  alike  totally  cor- 
rupt, some  thus  resist  and  others  do  not  —  this  is 
something  which  we  cannot  explain. 

4.  Missouri  charges  Ohio  with  holding  a  syner- 
gistic view  of  conversion,  because  the  latter  denies 
that  God  has  decided  by  an  absolute  decree  who  and 
how  many  "shall  and  must  believe,"  and  thus  leaves 
the  decision,  whether  he  will  believe  or  not  to  man. 
Ohio  strenuously  repels  the  charge  on  the  ground 
that  it  teaches  that  conversion  from  beginning  to  end 
is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  man  can  do 
nothing  to  promote  it,  though  he  can  hinder  it.  It 
claims  that  the  contrary  doctrine  implies  an  irresistible 
grace  in  conversion. 

It  became  clear  at  the  intersynodical  conferences 
(1903-4)  that  between  the  two  parties  there  was  a  difference 
of  view  with  regard  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  Ohio  asserted 
that  we  dare  teach  nothing  concerning  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion in  the  narrower  sense  which  would  conflict  with  the 
general  benevolent  will  of  God;  that  is.  which  wotild  be 
contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  which   would   fail  to 


356  INDEPENDENT    SYNODS:  §    28," 

liarmonize  with  the  other  passages  of  Scripture  which 
treat  of  our  salvation.  Missouri  asserted  that  there 
need  not  be  between  the  different  doctrines  of  Scripture 
a  harmony  recognizable  by  the  theologian,  because  the 
articles  of  faith  are  not  something  subjective,  but  some- 
thing objective;  and  that,  if  the  passages  treating  of  the 
special  decree  of  election  state  something  which  we  can- 
not harmonize  with  those  passages  which  treat  of  the 
general  benevolent  will,  we  must  take  our  reason  cap- 
tive, accept  the  doctrine  nevertheless,  and  say,  "Speak, 
Lord,  for  Thy  servant  heareth."  The  criterion  for  the 
correct  interpretation  of  a  Scripture  passage  treating  of 
the  special  election  is  not  the  harmony  of  Scripture  as 
a  whole,  but  only  the  passages  which  are  the  "sedes  doc- 
trinae"  for  the  election  of  particular  persons.  The  third 
conference  in  April,  1904,  at  Detroit,  Mich.,  also  resulted  in 
a  failure  to  reach  any  agreement.  Dr.  Stellhorn,  in  the 
name  of  the  Ohio  Synod  and  of  the  Iowa  Synod  declared: 
"The  Christian  doctrines  form  for  the  Christian,  especially 
for  the  theologian,  a  recognizable  harmonious  whole  or 
system,  which  is  composed  of  doctrines  drawn  from  per- 
fectly clear  passages  of  Holy  Scripture.  This  organic  whole 
is  the  highest  norm  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  and  stands 
above  even  the  parallelism  or  comparison  of  the  passages 
which  treat  of  the  same  doctrine."  On  the  other  hand.  Dr. 
F.  Pieper,  as  the  representative  of  Missouri,  declared: 
"Every  doctrine  which  is  not  drawn  solely  from  the  Scrip- 
ture passages  which  expressly  treat  of  that  doctrine  is  not 
a  Scriptural  doctrine,  but  a  human  opinion."  He  asserted 
that  it  is  modern  theology  to  attempt  to  bring  together 
into  a  system  doctrines  (in  this  case  those  of  the  general 
and  special  benevolent  will  of  God)  whose  connection  is 
not  shown  by  the  Word  of  God  itself.  Toward  the  removal 
of  this  difference,  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  others,  no 
progress  was  made.  \ 

3.     Characteristic   Features   of  the  Ohio   Synod. 

a..  It  has  overcome  the  language  difficulty  (see 
the  exodus  of  the  EngHsh  District  thrice  repeated), 
and  is  now  progressing  harmoniously.    A  third  of  its 


§    _>8,''  Till-:    JOINT   SYNOD   OF   OHIO.  35/ 

constituency  is  using  the  English  language  and  an- 
other third  both  languages.  Its  periodicals  are  "Lu- 
therische  Kirchenzeitung"  and  "The  Lutheran  Stand- 
ard;"  the  "Theologische  Zcitblacttcr,"  are  half  Ger- 
man and  halt  Knglish. 

1).  In  regard  to  its  theological  position,  it  differs 
from  Missouri  in  the  matter  of  election  and  con- 
version. Relative  to  the  doctrines  of  the  ministry 
(Synodical  History,  p.  192,  202),  the  Antichrist,  Chil- 
iasm  and  "Open  yuestions,'  its  old  synodical  reso- 
lutions are  in  existence  (originally  formulated  in  op- 
position to  Iowa)  ;  but  at  the  conferences  at  Michi- 
gan City  0893)  and  Toledo  (1908,  1912)  Iowa  and 
Ohio  joined  hands  in  the  Toledo  Theses,  given  in 
Appendix  111.  at  the  end  of  this  book. 

c.  In  its  practice  pertaining  to  doctrinal  discipline, 
unionism,  secret  societies,  worldly  methods  in  the 
church,  and  parochial  schools,  it  shares  the  attitude  of 
Missouri  (§  27),  although  it  may  be  somewhat  less 
rigid   (§  27,  3)   in  individual  cases. 

4.     Its    Institutions   and   Missionary   Activities. 
1)     Educational  Institutions. 

a.  TheologiczJ  Seminaries.  A.  The  seminary  at 
Columbus,  Ohio  (the  theoretical  seminary  of  the 
synod)  shares  the  buildings  of  Capital  University  of 
that  city.  Faculty:  Dr.  F.  W.  Stellhorn,  Dr.  G.  H. 
Schodde,  Dr.  K.  Pfeiffer,  Dr.  Theo.  Mees.  Dr.  R.  C.  H. 
Lenski.  —  B.  The  Practical  Seminary  at  St.  Paul  was 
originally  connected  with  Columbus,  separated  from 
it  in  1885,  transferred  to  Afton,  Minn.,  and  then  per- 
manently  located   at  St.   Paul   in   1892.     A  pro-sem- 


358  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS:  §    28/ 

inary,  offering  a  four  years  course,  is  connected  with 
it.  This  institution  is  under  the  management  of 
Prof.  Dr.  H.  Ernst,  assisted  by  a  faculty  of  five  pro- 
fessors. 

b.  Colleges.  A.  Capital  University^  Columbus, 
was  founded  in  1850.  The  professors  of  the  sem- 
inary, together  with  seven  other  professors,  con- 
stitute its  faculty.  Prof.  Otto  Mees  is  president.  A 
majority  of  the  students  prepare  for  the  ministry. 
This  institution  conferred  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Divinity  on  Dr.  Walther  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
synod  (1877),  a  few  years  before  the  controversy  with 
Missouri  concerning  election  arose.  Afterwards  the 
same  degree  was  conferred  on  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt.  — 
B.  Hebron  Academy,  Hebron,  Neb.,  founded  1911.  It 
is  a  co-educational  institution,  wdth  a  faculty  of  three 
professors.  —  C.  Melville  Academy  (founded  in  1914), 
Melville,  Saskatchewan,  Canada,  preparatory  to  the 
pro-seminary  at  St.  Paul,  has  three  teachers,  35  stu- 
dents (H.  Schmidt,  Principal). 

c.  The  Teachers'  Seminary  of  the  synod  is  located 
at  Woodville,  Ohio,  and  has  six  professors.  Prof.  K. 
Hemminghaus  is  president.  The  Ohio  Synod  has  135 
parochial  schools,  which  are  being  served  by  specially 
prepared  teachers  of  both  sexes. 

2)     Missionary  Work. 

a.  Home  Missions.  In  this  respect  Ohio  has 
been  very  active.  After  new  congregations  had  been 
founded  without  any  definite  plan  for  several  decades, 
a  mission  board  of  five  members  was  organized  in 
1884,  and  was  entrusted  with  the  management  of  a 
fund  contributed  for  this  purpose.     It  considers  ap- 


§    28,*  THE    JOINT    SYNOD   OF   OHIO.  359 

plications  and  aids  worthy  enterprises.  At  its  meet- 
ings of  the  District  Synods  missionaries  from  dif- 
ferent fields  present  reports  of  their  work.  These 
furnish  the  basis  for  the  president's  recommendations 
concerning  possible  assistance  to  be  rendered.  Dur- 
ing its  existence  of  twenty-nine  years  the  board  has 
sent  missionaries  into  half  of  the  states  of  the  Union. 
In  1914  it  collected  $80,140  for  this  purpose.  Besides 
this  fund,  it  maintains  a  fund  managed  in  the  interest 
of  poor  congregations  who  borrow  without  paying 
interest  for  the  building  of  new  churches. 

Note:  Special  mention  should  be  made  of  the  work 
done  by  Ohio  in  the  northwestern  section  of  Canada  — 
Manitoba,  Saskatchewan,  Alberta  and  British  Columbia. 
After  an  activity  of  ten  years  (see  Almanac  for  1915),  it  has 
a  Canadian  Synod  consisting  of  55  clergr>'mcn  and  150  con- 
gregations and  preaching  stations.  The  ministers  for  this 
field  come  from   the   practical  seminary  at   St.  Paul,  Minn. 

b.  Foreign  Missions.  Up  to  1912  the  Ohio  Synod 
sent  its  missionary  contributions  to  Hermannsburg ; 
but,  after  purchasing  from  that  society  a  portion  of 
its  field  and  from  the  London  Missionary  Society  the 
territory  adjacent  to  it,  this  body  now  carries  on  its 
own  work  from  the  central  station  of  Rajampt,  India, 
with  Pastor  Jesse  P.  Pflueger  as  its  representative. 

c.  A  mission  among  the  negroes  has  been  es- 
tablished at  "Baltimore,  Md. 

d.  Inner  Mission  work  is  being  done  by  the  con- 
gregations at  Toledo,  Pittsburgh  and  Columbus  in 
these  cities. 

Biographical  Notes. 

Prof.  W.  F.  Lehmann  was  for  many  years  influential  in 
the  synod.  .After  Dr.  Winkler's  resignation,  he  was  for 
thirty-four  years  the  head  of  the  Columbus  Seminary  and 
also  a  member  of  the  college   faculty.     In   1859  he  became 


360  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS  :  §    28 

editor-in-chief  of  "Die  Lutherische  Kirchenzeitung,"  which 
position  he  held  until  his  death.  He  was  not  a  polemical, 
but  rather  an  irenic  writer,  cautious  and  deliberate  in  his 
method.  Born  at  Markkroningen,  Wuertemberg,  in  1820,  he 
came  with  his  parents  to  Philadelphia  as  a  mere  lad  of  four. 
Pastor  Demme  took  an  interest  in  him,  and  sent  him  to 
Columbus,  where  he  studied  theology  amid  the  privations 
of  extreme  poverty,  living  on  46  cents  per  week,  sleeping 
on  sacks  filled  with  straw,  and  subsisting  on  corn-bread 
and  potatoes.  In  1840  he  took  charge  of  eight  congrega- 
tions in  Fairfield  County,  Ohio,  and  later  had  a  successful 
pastorate  at  Somerset,  Ohio.  In  1847  he  began  his  long  and 
honorable  career  as  professor  in  the  seminary  at  Columbus. 
His  death  occurred  in  1880. 

Prof.  Matthias  Loy,  D.  D.  Probably  the  strongest 
personal  influence  in  the  settlement  of  the  doctrinal  posi- 
tions of  the  Joint  Synod  was  that  of  Dr.  Loy.  Born  in 
Pennsylvania  March  17,  1828,  of  a  Roman  Catholic  father 
and  a  Lutheran  mother,  and  reared  in  lowly  circumstances, 
he  came  as  a  young  man  to  Ohio,  graduating  from  the 
Columbus  seminary  in  1849.  The  only  pastorate  he  served 
was  at  Delaware,  Ohio.  From  1866  until  he  became  Pro- 
fessor Emeritus  ten  years  ago,  he  was  continuously  a  pro- 
fessor in  both  the  college  and  seminary  at  Columbus.  He 
was  always  the  exponent  of  positive  confessionalism,  and 
in  a  practical  way  exercised  his  influence  chiefly  as  the  edi- 
tor of  "The  Lutheran  Standard"  from  1864  to  1891  and  of 
the  "Theological  Magazine"  from  1881  to  1888.  He  pub- 
lished a  series  of  useful  books,  among  them,  "Sermons  on 
the  Gospels,"  "Sermons  on  the  Epistles,"  "An  Essay  on  the 
Ministry,"  "Christian  Prayer,"  "The  Augsburg  Confession," 
"The  Doctrine  of  Justification."  The  details  of  his  career 
are  recited  in  a  graphic  manner  in  his  "Story  of  My  Life" 
(1905).    He  died  in  1915. 

Prof.  Frederick  William  Stellhorn,  D.D.  The  subject  of 
this  sketch  was  born  in  Hanover  October  2,  1841,  and  was 
educated  at  Fort  Wayne  and  St.  Louis,  the  chief  institu- 
tions of  the  Missouri  Sjaiod.  After  serving  pastorates  in 
St.  Louis  and  Indiana,  he  became  professor  in  the  college 


§  j8  the  joint  synod  of  OHIO.  361 

of  the  Wisconsin  Synod  in  1869  and  at  Ft.  Wayne  in  1874.  In 
1881,  as  the  result  of  the  predestination  controversy,  he 
severed  his  connection  with  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  ac- 
cepted a  position  in  the  college  and  seminary  of  the  Ohio 
Synod  at  Columbus.  For  a  number  of  years  he  was  editor 
of  "Die  Lutherisciie  Kirchenzeitung,"  and  has  been  the  sole 
editor  of  "Theologischc  Zeitblaettcr"  since  it  was  established 
in  1881.  He  is  pre-eminently  the  scholar  of  the  Joint  Synod, 
and  has  published  conmieniaries  011  tiic  Gospels,  the  Acts, 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  an<l  Romans.  He  also  wrote  a  "Dic- 
tionary of  X.  T.  Greek,"  a  "Commentary  on  Biblical  Proof- 
passages  ill  ihe  Catechism,"  etc.  He  is  professor  of  Dog- 
matics, Kxeycsis  and  I'.thics  in  the  seminary  at  Columbus. 
Pastor  H.  A.  AUwardt,  D.  D.,  was  born  March  2,  1840,  at 
Wachendorf,  Mecklenburg-Schworin,  and  came  to  America 
in  1853.  He  studied  in  the  practical  seminary  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod  (1858),  the  gymnasium  at  Ft.  Wayne  and  the 
seminary  at  St.  Louis.  He  was  pastor  at  Crystal  Lake,  Wis. 
(1865-1873),  and  at  Lebanon,  Wis.  (1874-1910).  He  protested 
against  W'alther's  doctrine  of  predestination,  at  first  pri- 
vately (1878-79),  then  publicly,  especially  at  the  Chicago 
conference  in  1880  and  in  "Altes  und  Neues"  (1880),  "Zeit- 
blaettcr" and  "Kirchenzeitung"  (1885).  He  was  suspended 
from  synodical  fellowship  by  the  president  of  his  synod, 
which  action  was  ratified  by  the  synod  itself,  after  he  had 
been  warned  that  fraternal  fellowship  with  him  would 
cease,  should  he  fail  to  retract  his  views.  Then  in  Novem- 
ber, 1881,  Allwardt  and  a  number  of  insurgent  Missouri 
pastors  founded  their  own  conference.  The  Northwestern 
District  was  formed  in  May,  1883,  Allwardt  being  its  presi- 
dent until  the  division  of  1890.  He  was  president  of  the 
Wisconsin  District  until  1899.  The  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Divinity  was  conferred  upon  him  by  Capital  University  in 
1898.  He  was  president  of  the  board  of  Ohio's  practical 
seminary  at  Afton  and  St.  Paul  from  1884  to  1910.  He  con- 
tinued his  battle  against  Missouri,  especially  at  inter- 
sj'nodical  conferences  (1903-1906)  until  his  death.  Agreeing 
with  Missouri  in  everything  l)wt  the  doctrine  of  election,  he 
protested  against  the  "Michigan  Theses"  (1893),  which  en- 
couraged union   with   Iowa.     He  was  one  of  the   signers  of 


362  INDEPENDENT   SYNODS:  §    28 

the  "Toledo  Theses"  of  1907.  Convinced  of  the  truth  of 
Lutheranism,  he  took  a  firm  and  fearless  stand,  which  made 
him  the  object  alike  of  strong  enmity  and  enthusiastic 
admiration.  His  death  occurred  in  the  midst  of  his  labors 
April  9,  1910. 

President  C.  H.  Schuette,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Vorrel, 
Hanover,  June  17,  1843.  He  emigrated  to  America  in  1854, 
and  received  his  classical  and  theological  training  at  Cap- 
ital University  (1859-72).  From  1872  to  1894  he  was  pro- 
fessor of  mathematics  at  this  school,  and  became  theolog-^ 
ical  professor  in  the  seminary  in  1881.  Since  that  date  he 
has  been  General  President  of  the  Ohio  Synod.  In  this 
capacity  he  has  collected  more  than  $400,000  for  educational 
work.  He  is  the  author  of  the  following  books :  "Church 
Member's  Manual,"  "State,  Church  and  School,"  "Before  the 
Altar"  (a  work  on  liturgies),  and  "Exercises  unto  Godli- 
ness," the  last  containing  two  brief  sermons  for  each  Sun- 
day and  Festival  Day  of  the  Church  Year  and  also  daily 
morning  and  evening  devotions. 

Dr.  George  H.  Schodde.  Dr.  Schodde  was  born  in  Pitts- 
burg, Pa.,  April  15,  1854,  and  was  educated  at  Columbus, 
Tuebingen  and  Leipzig  (Ph.  D.).  Since  1882  he  has  been 
professor  of  Greek  in  the  college  at  Columbus  and  since 
1895  also  a  member  of  the  seminary  faculty.  He  has  pub- 
lished a  number  of  translations  and  other  books,  and  has 
contributed  to  many  philological  and  theological  journals. 
For  twenty  years  he  was  one  of  the  editors  of  "The  Lu- 
theran Standard,"  and  for  ten  years  edited  the  Magazine. 
He  is  a  trusted  interpreter  of  the  Scriptures. 


§  29.    The  Iowa  Synod.  * 

1.  The  Origin  of  the  Iowa  Synod.  The  attitude 
of  the  pastors  near  Saginaw,  Mich.,  brought  about 
a  rupture  between  Loehe  and  the  Missouri  Synod. 
At  the  instance  of  Pastor  Cloeter,  of  Saginaw,  Presi- 
dent Wyneken  in   1853  came  to  Saginaw,  and  at  a 

*  Contributed  by  the  Rev.   Prof.   Geo.  J.   Fritschel. 


§  29,^  Till-:  IOWA  svNon.  363 

conference  the  two  adherents  of  Loehe  (Inspector 
Geo.    Grossmann,    of    Saginaw,    and   Johannes    Dein- 

doerfer,  pa>tur  at  Frankenhilf)  were  given  the  alter- 
native either  to  discontinue  the  seminary  founded  by 
Loehe,  or  to  turn  it  over  to  the  Missouri  Synod. 
Failure  to  do  so,  would  cause  the  institution  to  be 
considered  "schismatical."  The  same  demand  was 
forwarded  to  Loehe  in  writing  by  Wyneken  as  pres- 
ident of  the  synod.  At  the  same  conference  Wyneken 
expressed  the  idea  that,  should  the  adherents  of  Loehe 
emigrate  to  a  territory  not  yet  occupied  by  Missouri 
(Iowa  for  instance),  conflict  might  l)c  avoided.  With 
the  consent  of  Loehe,  his  adherents,  a  little  party  of 
22,  journeyed  to  Dubuque,  la.,  in  the  fall  of  1853  in 
order  to  establish  a  new  mission  in  that  state,  which 
was  just  then  being  opened  to  immigration.  On  ac- 
count of  lack  of  funds  only  a  part  of  these  people, 
under  the  leadership  of  Deindoerfer,  went  sixty  miles 
farther  northwest  and  founded  the  colony  of  "St.  Se- 
bald  at  the  Spring."  Grossmann  and  the  five  stu- 
dents who  had  accompanied  him  (the  others  had  be- 
come teachers  in  the  Missouri  Synod)  found  Dubuque 
a  promising  field  for  their  activity.  Shortly  after- 
wards Sigmund  Fritschel  and  M.  Schueller  arrived 
from  Neuendettelsau,  and.  in  conjunction  with  Gross- 
mann and  Deindoerfer,  organized  the  Iowa  Synod  at 
St.  Sebald,  Aug.  24.  1854.  All  persons  who  have 
described  the  beginning  of  this  synod  agree  that  no 
synod  was  ever  founded  under  more  discouraging 
circumstances.  Deindoerfer  lived  at  first  in  a  small 
deserted  log  cabin,  and  afterwards,  to  avoid  freezing, 
moved  into  the  house  of  the  first  settler  in  St.  Sebald, 
whose  solitary  room  was  divided  into  two  parts  by  a 


364  INDEPENDENT    SYNODS  :  §    29,^ 

board  partition,  so  as  to  accommodate  the  two  fam- 
ilies. Repeatedly  in  the  seminary  the  last  dollar  had 
been  expended,  and  the  last  piece  of  bread  eaten,  while 
no  one  knew  whence  more  was  to  be  obtained.  At 
one  time  the  final  payment  of  $1,000,  together  with 
interest  of  $100,  became  due,  and  there  was  no  money 
in  sight  when  the  payment  had  to  be  made.  Loehe, 
who  was  to  send  this  sum,  could  not  raise  it.  But 
somehow  (from  some  unexpected  source)  the  exact 
amount  arrived  two  days  before  the  debt  became 
due.  Many  had  turned  away  from  Loehe ;  the 
treatment  of  the  mission  friends  in  Europe  at  the 
hands  of  Missouri  alienated  Germany's  interest  in  the 
American  field.  Moreover,  Loehe,  by  his  strong  con- 
fessional .attitude,  had  offended  many  within  the 
State  Church.  Hence  less  money  was  placed  at 
Loehe's  disposal  with  which  to  carry  on  the  work. 
Retrenchment  became  imperative.  The  Dubuque 
Seminar}^  had  to  serve  at  the  same  time  as  a  school, 
a  church  and  the  director's  residence.  Once  it  had 
to  be  temporarily  closed  for  lack  of  funds,  and 
S.  Fritschel  took  charge  of  a  mission  that  had  formerly 
been  supplied  from  Dubuque. 

2.  Growth  of  the  Synod.  The  new  synod,  realiz- 
ing its  lack  of  experience,  did  not  at  once  attempt  to 
formulate  a  constitution.  Instead  of  this,  an  explicit 
constitution  for  congregations  gives  expression  to  a 
clear  confessional  basis. 

Pastor  Grabau  came  to  Dubuque  in  September, 
1855,  to  confer  with  the  members  of  the  Iowa  Synod. 
As  Walther  and  Wyneken  had  gone  to  see  Loehe, 
he  had  done  likewise  in  1853.  Iowa  (like  Loehe) 
was  willing  to  make  common  cause  with  both  Mis- 


§    29,"  Till-:    IOWA    SYNOD.  365 

souri  and  Bufifalo.  because  the  doctrinal  differences 
(as  they  appeared  at  that  time)  did  not  seem  to  justify 
a  schism.  At  Grabau's  request  Iowa  took  charge  of 
the  congregations  (connected  with  Buffalo)  around 
Madison,  Wis.,  which  Grabau  was  unable  to  supply 
with  ministers.  Thus  Iowa  gained  missionary  terri- 
tory in  southern  Wisconsin. 

But  the  synod's  growth  was  slow.  The  seminary 
graduated  one  student  in  1855  (C.  Beckel).  Loehe. 
having  transferred  his  seminary  to  Neuendettelsau, 
wdience  Friedrich  Bauer,  who  devoted  all  his  time  to 
the  instruction  of  the  future  missionaries,  sent  the 
following:  Doerfler,  1855;  J.  J.  Schmidt  (Indian 
missionary),  1856;  Burk,  1856;  Gottfried  Fritschel 
and  J.  List,  1857.  On  account  of  the  high  cost  of 
living  in  the  city,  the  seminary  at  Dubucjue  was 
transferred  to  St.  Sebald,  where  a  part  of  the 
provisions  could  be  raised  on  the  seminary  farm. 
There  Grossmann  and  some  of  the  older  students 
erected  a  simple  frame  house,  which,  until  187-1. 
accommodated  the  students  and  the  families  oi 
two  professors.  Prof.  S.  Fritschel  had  takcti  charge 
of  the  Bufifalo  Synod  congregation  at  Detroit  at  the 
request  of  Grabau  (1856),  and  Doerfler.  under  similar 
circumstances,  of  the  church  at  Toledo,  O.  (1857). 
But  when  the  first  number  of  the  "Kirchenblatt"  was 
issued  with  the  declaration  of  1856  concerning  the 
synod's  attitude  toward  the  Confessions,  and  when 
(in  1858)  Iowa  took  a  stand  against  Missouri's  atti- 
tude concerning  Chiliasm,  Buffalo,  after  some  fruit- 
less conferences,  joined  the  opposition  against  Iowa. 
The  .synod  now  recalled  S.  Fritschel  to  the  seminary, 
where  he  remained  until  his  death.     Doerfler  and  his 


366  INDEPENDENT    SYNODS:  §    29,^ 

congregation,  having  been  tyranized  by  Rev.  Hoch- 
stetteriof  the  Buffalo  Synod,  united  with  Iowa.  The 
congregations  founded  by  Iowa  in  the  vicinity  of  De- 
troit by  students  of  Iowa  remained  loyal  to  it,  thus 
securing  for  that  synod  an  eastern  territory. 

In  spite  of  many  obstacles  and  constant  opposition 
on  the  part  of  Missouri,  the  synod  grew,  slowly  at 
first,  but  eventually  at  a  rapid  pace.  In  1875  it  had 
more  than  a  hundred  ministers.  During  a  boom  the 
Dubuque  property  had  risen  in  value,  and  it  was  gen- 
erally supposed  that  its  sale  would  furnish  substantial 
initial  payment  for  the  purchase  of  a  farm  at  St. 
Sebald.  But  one  of  those  financial  crises,  which 
recur  in  this  country  with  ominous  regularity,  foiled 
all  these  calculations.  The  house,  in  fact,  could  not 
be  sold  at  all.  Thus  the  synod  was  loaded  with  a 
debt  of  $6,000,  which,  on  account  of  small  revenues, 
increased  to  $7,000  in  1860.  Professor  S.  Fritschel 
was  sent  to  Germany  to  raise  funds.  He  was  cor- 
dially received,  not  only  in  Bavaria,  but  also  in  Hesse, 
Breslau,  Pomerania,  Mecklenburg  and  particularly  at 
Dorpat,  Riga,  and  St.  Petersburg.  Here  Frau  von 
Helffreich  became  a  warm  friend  of  Iowa's  mission 
work,  and  a  lady  of  nobility,  Fraeulein  von  Schwarz 
("Aunt  Augusta"),  volunteered  to  become  matron  of 
the  Wartburg.  When  Fritschel  returned  in  October, 
1861,  the  debt  had  been  lifted,  and  there  was  a  nucleus 
on  hand  for  an  endowment  fund. 

Iowa  had  desired  at  all  times  to  live  harmoniously 
with  Buffalo  and  Missouri.  But  both  of  these  synods, 
representing  the  traditionalistic  principle  (§  20,  II,  1)', 
continued  to  attack  Iowa's  doctrinal  position.  Iowa, 
on  the  other  hand,  recognized  Missouri's  Lutheranism, 


§    29,"  THE    IOWA    SYNOD.  367 

merely  objecting  to  its  narrowness  of  interpretation, 
which  seemed  incompatible  with  Article  VII  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  Eventually  some  of  Iowa's 
pastors  began  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  their  synod's 
position.  This  caused  Prof.  S.  Fritschel  to  be  sent 
to  Germany,  not  only  to  represent  the  synod  at  the 
twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  Neuendettelsau,  but  to 
confer  with  German  theologians,  still  recognized  by 
Missouri,  regarding  the  differences  between  the 
synods.  The  University  of  Rostock  refused  to  pass 
an  opinion,  but  Christiani,  Harless,  Luthardt,  Muenkel, 
Guericke  and  the  University  of  Dorpat  expressed 
their  views  and  advised  the  synod.  In  a  general  way 
they  agreed  with  Iowa,  but  criticised  a  few  points. 
Their  views  were  submitted  to  the  synod,  meeting 
at  Toledo,  Ohio,  in  1866,  together  with  a  paper  dis- 
cussing the  question :  "What  is  essential  to  church 
unity?"  See  the  thesis  in  Deindoerfer's  Geschichte, 
p.  127.  The  Chronicles  of  the  Iowa  Synod  offer  this 
comment : 

"Some  of  these  opinions,  especially  those  of  Dr. 
Christiani,  of  Riga,  and  those  of  the  Dorpat  Uni- 
versity, gfive  an  approving  opinion  concerning  the 
confessional  position  of  our  synod ;  others,  like  Har- 
less and  Muenkel,  especially  criticised  our  method  of 
making  distinctions  between  the  obligatory  and  non- 
obligatory  doctrines  of  the  Symbols,  by  the  formal 
distinction  of  confessional  and  condemnatory  declara- 
tions and  theological  amplification  and  interpretation. 
The  synod,  having  considered  these  criticisms,  decided 
to  abandon  this  method,  which  was  so  likely  to  mis- 
lead and  also  to  be  misinterpreted.  Dr.  Muenkel  in- 
sisted that  all  essential  articles  were  to  be  considered 


368  INDEPENDENT    SYNODS:  §    29,' 

obligatory;  whatsoever  is  essential  remains  so,  even 
though  the  Symbols  mention  it  only  casually.  This 
remark  of  Muenkel  was  found  to  be  complemented 
by  the  opinion  of  Dorpat  that  certain  things,  though 
not  inherently  essential  in  themselves,  may  become  so 
by  their  connection  with  fundamental  doctrines.  Thus 
advised,  the  synod  corrected  its  position  in  such  a 
way  that  the  formal  distinctions  hitherto  recorded 
were  given  up  in  the  generality,  while  the  principle 
that  a  distinction  between  things  obligatory  and  non- 
obligatory  in  the  Symbols  must  be  made  was  retained." 
In  order  to  reach  a  state  of  fraternal  co-operation, 
Iowa,  at  the  same  meeting,  proposed  to  hold  a  colloquy 
with  Missouri.  This  was  held  at  Milwaukee,  Wis., 
Nov.  13-18,  1867. 

Iowa  was  represented  by  President  Grossman,  G.  and 
S.  Fritschel  and  Mr.  Becker.  The  Missourians  sent  Prof. 
Walther,  Pastors  Sihler,  Huegli  and  Hochstetter,  and  lay- 
men Stutz,  Wassermann,  Bierlein  and  Koch.  Much  time 
was  spent  in  the  discussion  of  the  order  in  which  the  topics 
should  be  presented.  Finally  it  was  agreed  to  begin  with 
the  question  of  the  Symbols.  Iowa  denied  that  it  occupied 
the  position  imputed  to  it  by  the  Missourians.  When  the 
question  was  reached  whether  every  word  of  the  Symbols 
was  obligatory,  Walther  replied :  "Everything  pertaining 
to  doctrines."  His  attention  was  called  to  the  dogma  of 
Mary's  perpetual  virginity.  S.  Fritschel  proved  from  his 
Toledo  Theses  ^  that  the  old  dogmaticians  agreed  with 
Iowa.  Walther  then  agreed  that  there  was  a  difference 
between  fundamental  and  peripherical  documents.  This 
brought  the  two  sides  closer  together;  and  this  agreement 
was  furthered  by  his  distinction  between  doctrines  of  faith 
and  problems.  The  two  parties  reached  an  agreement,  by 
which  both  declared  that  all  the  obligatory  doctrines  of 
faith  contained  in  the  confessions  must  be  considered. 


=*i  Published   in   Brobst's  Monatshefte,   1S67. 


§    JQ,-  IKHTKINAr.    POSITION.  369 

Then  the  doctrine  of  the  "La«t  Thing*"  came  up  for  dis- 
cussion. Iowa  denied  that  it  as  a  synod  had  established  a 
definite  doctrine  concerning  Chiliasm.  The  expression,  "our 
Chiliasm,"  had  been  used  to  designate  the  theory  held  by 
individuals  concerning  Rev.  20,  which  the  synod  did  not 
consider  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  This  theory  had 
been  held  by  the  majority  in  1858,  but  was  now  (1867)  held 
by  probably  only  a  small  number.  Gottfried  Fritschel,  who 
had  presented  the  paper  on  this  subject  in  1858,  declared 
that  he  would  withdraw  a  number  of  arguments  which  he 
had  used  at  that  time,  and  that  he  would  confme  his  views 
to  the  plain  statements  of  Rev.  19  and  20.  In  this  Scripture, 
he  maintained,  merely  the  "that"  was  essential  to  him,  and 
he  did  not  venture  to  express  any  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
"how."  Any  interpretation  which  did  not  square  with  the 
analogy  of  faith  must  be  rejected.  For  his  part,  he  would 
not  even  assert  that  Christ's  appearance  for  the  purpose  of 
crushing  the  Anti-christ  was  to  be  visible;  but  should  any 
hold  that  it  would  be  visible,  like  Paul's  vision  near  Damas- 
cus, he  would  find  no  violation  of  the  analogy  of  faith  in 
that  view.  This  satisfied  Walther,  who  declared  that,  while 
he  considered  the  subtle  Chiliasm  of  Spener,  Brenz,  etc., 
erroneous,  he  would  class  it  among  things  problematical. 
As  long  as  the  matter  was  submitted  "problematice,"  the 
case  was  not  necessarily  heretical.  Thus  there  was  a  gen- 
eral reapprochcment.  But  the  interpretation  of  Rev.  20:4, 
5  led  them  apart.  They  could  not  agree  as  to  whether  the 
resurrection  mentioned  there  was  of  a  physical  or  spiritual 
nature.  As  the  delegates  of  Iowa  had  to  attend  the  first 
convention  of  the  General  Council,  the  negotiations  came 
to  a  close. 

Iowa  had  entered  into  friendly  relations  with  the 
neighboring  synods  of  Minnesota,  Wisconsin  and  Illi- 
nois. That  these  synods  had  gradually  been  reced- 
ing from  the  unionistic  basis  to  solid  principles  of 
Luthcrani^m  was,  to  some  extent,  due  to  Iowa's  in- 
fluence.    But  if  even  the  pastors  of  the  Iowa  Synod 

24 


370  THE    lOVVA    SYNOD.  §    29," 

were  shaken  in  their  convictions  by  the  attacks  of 
Missouri,  it  was  only  reasonable  that  these  synods 
should  begin  to  view  Iowa's  moderate  position  as  not 
"genuinely  Lutheran,"  and  look  for  union  with  Mis- 
souri, which  offered  better  advantages  than  the  poor 
Synod  of  Iowa. 

The  Synod  of  Iowa  had  observed  with  satisfaction 
the  growth  of  Lutheran  consciousness  in  the  districts 
of  the  General  Synod.  After  the  rupture  of  1866,  it 
had  participated  in  the  discussions  at  Reading,  Pa., 
and  at  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind.,  approving,  as  did  Ohio  and 
Missouri,  the  confessional  position  of  the  General 
Council.  It  had  even  decided  to  join  the  General 
Council;  but  because  that  body  refused  to  draw  the 
practical  conclusions  by  declaring  itself  relative  to 
the  "Four  Points,"  it  subsequently  reversed  its 
decision.  However,  Iowa  continued  to  sustain  friendly 
relations  with  the  Council,  and  retained  an  advisory 
voice  in  the  deliberations  of  that  body.  This  relation 
has  led  to  increasingly  cordial  feehngs  between  the 
two  synods.  Iowa,  instead  of  pubHshing  its  own 
Hymnal,  took  part  in  the  editing  of  the  "Kirchen- 
buch."  The  two  Fritschels  contributed  valuable 
articles  on  the  problems  of  the  day  to  the  "Brobstsche 
Monatshefte." 

In  1873  at  Davenport,  the  synod  was  divided  into 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Districts.  At  this  meeting 
the  dift'erences  between  Iowa  and  Missouri  were  dis- 
cussed, and  Iowa  formulated  its  position  in  the  Daven- 
port Theses  (see  Appendix).  The  constitution  was 
revised,  -®-  the  terminology  of  the  formula  of  ordina- 

^^2  The  different  forms  of  the  constitution  are  found  in  Kraushaar, 
pp.   373-89. 


§    29."  DOCTRINAL    POSITION.  7)71 

tion  beinq;  substituted  for  the  so-called  "Stiftungs- 
para.^^raph"  (see  above).  Passavant's  suggestion  that 
tlie  synod  purchase  the  abandoned  property  of  Men- 
dota  College  for  seminary  purposes  was  acted  \\\M)n 
favorably.  This  caused  the  transfer  of  the  Wartburg 
Seminary  to  Illinois  in  1874  and  the  subsequent  open- 
ing of  a  new  niissi(>nary  field.  In  the  same  year  Iowa 
came  to  the  most  critical  point  in  its  development. 
While  the  older  ministers,  who  were  largely  trained 
at  Xeuendettelsau,  wished  to  adhere  to  the  doctrines 
of  their  teachers  in  that  institution,  and  suspected 
in  the  Davenport  Theses  a  movement  toward  Missouri, 
the  younger  ministers,  desiring  harmony,  were  in 
favor  of  following  Minnesota,  Illinois  and  Wisconsin 
into  the  Missouri  fold.  The  Rev.  J.  Klindworth, 
without  showing  his  hand,  succeeded  in  organizing 
both  parties,  his  aim  being  to  displace  the  leaders. 
The  Missouri  faction  ( Schieferdecker)  entered  into 
negotiations  with  Walther.  To  aid  this  movement, 
the  Norwegian,  Prof.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  then  at  St.  Louis, 
published  a  series  of  articles  in  "Der  Lutheraner,"  in 
which  he  tried,  on  the  basis  of  so-called  "documentary 
proofs,"  to  prove  the  dishonest  character  of  Iowa's 
pastors  and  congregations.  They  were  reprinted  un- 
der the  title.  "lowas  Missverstaendnisse  und  Be- 
maentelungen."  On  the  other  hand,  Inspector  Bauer 
setit  a  circular  letter  to  the  Neuendettelsau  graduates, 
and  addressed  a  "Dcnkschrift"  to  the  synod,  pleading 
for  a  return  to  the  original  position  of  Iowa.  At 
the  synodical  meeting  at  Madison,  Wis.,  a  lengthy 
discussion  disclosed  the  attitude  of  Klindworth.  In  the 
Madison  Theses  ""^  the  svnod  declared  its  adherence 


*'■  They   form   in   .Tpprnlix   in   ilir   ronititMtion. 


372  THE    IOWA    SYNOD.  §    29," 

to  the  synod's  original  position,  according-  to  which, 
as  an  organization,  it  placed  itself  above  all  factions 
on  the  general  Lutheran  position.  The  two  Fritschels, 
who,  actuated  by  Christian  forbearance,  had  refused 
to  reply  to  Schmidt's  personal  method  of  attack,  were 
instructed  to  publish  a  documentary  presentation  in 
"KirchHche  Zeitschrift,"  the  title  to  be  "Iowa  and 
Missouri." 

At  the  twenty-fifth  anniversar}^  of  the  Iowa  Synod 
(1879)  Inspector  Joh.  Deinzer  (successor  to  Bauer) 
was  present,  and  after  expressing  his  entire  approval 
of  Iowa's  final  attitude,  promised  continued  support 
from  Germany.  This  assurance  was  all  the  more 
welcome,  because  of  the  increasing  stream  of  immi- 
gration into  Iowa's  territory.  Help  arrived  in  the 
form  of  students  educated,  or  at  least  prepared  in 
part,  at  Neuendettelsau,  Hesse  (Pastor  Schedler  of 
Dreihausen),  Mecklenburg  (Gotteskasten),  Hanover, 
and  later  by  Pastor  Janssen  of  Strackholt.  Thus 
Iowa  w^as  able  to  look  after  the  spiritual  needs  of 
western  immigrants.  Having  passed  through  this 
doctrinal  crisis  with  the  loss  of  twenty  ministers,  who 
for  the  most  part  united  with  Wisconsin,  -^*  the  synod's 
growth  was  steady  and  rapid. 

There  is  little  to  report  about  Iowa's  movements 
in  recent  history.  The  synod  was  slightly  afifected 
by  the  controversy  concerning  predestination,  which 
agitated  Missouri  in  1880.  In  the  theses  of  St.  Sebald 
(1881)  and  Dubuque  (1882),  Iowa  declared  against 
Walther's  construction.    Many  articles  in  "KirchHche 


^"Also  Klindworth,  who  had  failed  to  establish  an  "original"  Iowa 
Synod   with    the    aid   of   the   malcontents. 


§    2C),-  DOCTRINAL    POSITION.  373 

Zoitsclirift"  illumined  the  doctrine  from  various  points 
of  view. 

After  the  Ohio  Synod  had  withdrawn  from  the 
Synodical  Conference,  the  Iowa  Synod  sought  to  es- 
tablish fraternal  relations  with  the  Ohio  brethren. 
Gottfried  Fritschel  arranqcd  a  cotifcrencc  of  the 
synodical  leaders,  who  met  at  Richmond,  Ind.,  and 
recorded  their  agreement  in  the  Richmond  Theses."" 
But  a  union  was  not  effected  because  of  former  preju- 
dices. Ohio  proposed  a  colloquium  in  1887,  which, 
iiowevcr,  did  not  take  place  until  1893  in  Michigan 
City,  Ind.  But  Ohio's  former  Missourians,  especially 
.\llwardt  and  KHndworth.  prevented  the  adoption  of 
the  articles  of  agreement  that  had  been  proposed. 
These  were  revised  in  1909  at  Toledo.  Ohio,  and  then 
adopted  by  both  synods.     (See  Appendix.) 

In  1896  the  Texas  Synod,-"*"'  in  the  interest  of  its 
missionary  work,  became  a  district  of  the  Iowa  Synod. 
At  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  Iowa  Synod,  meet- 
ing at  Dubuque.  la..  Deindoerfer  only,  among  the 
founders  was  still  living. 

Iowa's  territory  extends  from  western  Pennsyl- 
vania to  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  from  the  northern 
boundary  line  of  the  United  State  down  to  Texas. 
During  its  existence  of  60  years  the  synod  has  had  but 
three  presidents  (Grossmann.  Deindoerfer,  Richter) 
and  four  secretaries.  Since  1893  the  president  receives 
an  official  salary,  and  devotes  his  entire  time  to  the 
affairs  of  the  svnod. 


""Never  printed,  but  partly  found  in  the  conclusion  of  S.  Fritschd's 
"Distinctive   Doctrines." 

""Pastor  Joh.  Roehm,  who  studied  on  the  Wartburg,  cavised  Geo. 
T.  Kritschel's  call  to  the  college  at  Brcnham  through  which  contact 
with   Iowa   had   been    established. 


374  THE    IOWA    SYNOD.  §    2<^^ 

3)  Characteristics  Features  of  the  Iowa  Synod. 

a.  Constitution.  In  this  respect  the  synod  is 
very  explicit.  The  lowest  circle  is  formed  by  the 
congregation,  which,  in  turn,  is  the  highest  tribunal 
in  all  matters  pertaining  to  congregational  affairs. 
For  the  settlement  oi  controversies  which  a  con- 
gregation is  unable  to  adjust,  the  aid  of  synodical  offi- 
cers may  be  solicited.  The  synod,  however,  has  merely 
an  advisory  voice  in  congregational  affairs,  and  has 
no  power  beyond  the  weight  of  its  arguments.  An 
offending  congregation,  unwilling  to  reform,  can  be 
punished  only  by  exclusion  from  synodical  fellowship. 
The  different  congregations,  together  with  their  pas- 
tors, constitute  the  synod,  at  whose  gatherings  con- 
gregations, actually  connected,  have  a  vote,  while 
others  have  merely  the  privilege  of  the  floor.  All 
pastors  have  a  seat  in  the  synod  and  also  the  right 
to  vote.  Its  membership  being  widely  scattered,  the 
synod  is  divided  into  dift'erent  districts,  which  decide 
their  affairs  so  far  as  they  pertain  only  to  their  terri- 
tory. The  whole  synod  meets  tri-annually  (since 
1888)  as  "a  convention  of  delegates/'  at  which  time 
general  matters,  such  as  missions,  extensions,  pubHca- 
tions,  institutions,  etc.,  are  submitted  for  discussion. 
Since  its  very  beginning  Iowa  has  arranged  a  system 
of  voluntary  contributions.  On  certain  days  all  con- 
gregations receive  offerings  for  specific  objects. 
Special  collections  are  taken  only  for  extraordinary 
purposes. 

In  case  of  complaints  appeal  may  be  made  to  the 
synod  at  large,  but  the  decision  is  binding  only  if 
it  receives  the  consent  of  the  parties. 


§    _>9<^  CHARACTERISTIC    FEATURES.  375 

b.  Haviiij^  been  founded  by  the  liturgical  genius 
ot  Loehe,  the  synoil  has.  from  the  start,  laid  great 
emphasis  on  liturgical  forms  of  worship,  private  con- 
fession in  addition  to  pulilic  confession,  and  the  ex- 
amination of  those  applying  for  reception  into  the 
congregation  (catechumenatc).  But  in  the  case  of 
many  congregations  the  efifort  of  the  synod  in  this 
direction  met  with  little  appreciation,  and,  according 
to  the  judgment  of  Deindoerfer,  too  great  insistence 
on  these  matters  often  hindered  the  synod's  growth. 

c.  Oversight  of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of 
pastors  and  congregations  was  provided  for  from  the 
beginning,  by  a  quadrennial  visitation  of  every  con- 
gregation by  the  president  or  some  special  officials 
of  the  synod.  Details  of  this  visitation  can  be  found 
in  the  "order  of  visitation,"  as  given  by  Deindoerfer, 
pp.  280-284. 

d.  From  its  very  beginning  Iowa  has  taken  a 
stand  against  secret  societies  that  make  religious 
pretensions.  It  demanded  a  similar  attitude,  at  least 
in  principle,  from  the  General  Council,  declaring  itself 
satisfied  with  the  Pittsburg  Declaration  (see  "Four 
Points").  In  the  matter  of  practice  it  agrees  with 
Missouri   atid  Ohio. 

4.  Educational  Institutions.  In  a  sense,  the  Iowa 
Synod  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  seminary  which  was 
transferred  from  Saginaw,  Mich.,  to  Dul^uque,  Iowa. 
After  its  removal  to  St.  Sebald  in  1857.  it  was  known 
as  "The  Wartburg  Seminary."  It  developed  under 
many  hardship."-,  being  inadequately  supported  by  the 
congregations  and  the  subsidies  from  C.ermany  and 
RiT^sin.  The  establishment  of  a  separate  college  at 
Galena.    111.,   previously   the   preparatory   department. 


3/6  THE   IOWA   SYNOD.  §    29,* 

was  somewhat  premature.  In  1874  the  seminary  was 
removed  to  Mendota,  111.,  and  finally  returned  to  Du- 
buque (1889),  where  at  present,  in  commemoration  of 
the  Reformation  Jubilee  (1917),  an  imposing  structure 
is  being  erected.  The  first  president  of  the  institu- 
tion was  Inspector  Grossmann,  joined  later  by  the 
two  Brothers  FritscheL  After  the  transfer  to  Men- 
dota, Grossmann  devoted  his  time  to  the  Teachers' 
Training  School  at  Waverly,  la.  The  two  Fritschels 
carried  on  the  seminary  work  almost  without  any 
assistance  for  many  years.  After  their  death  (1889 
and  1900)  Wilhelm  Proehl  and  afterwards  Max 
Fritschel  became  presidents.  The  institution  was 
altogether  German  at  first,  but  is  gradually  and  in- 
creasingly adding  English  departments.  It  has  a 
practical  and  a  theoretical  course,  each  extending 
over  a  period  of  three  years.  The  faculty  consists  of : 
Max  Fritschel,  president ;  Dr.  M.  Reu ;  Geo.  J. 
Fritschel ;  G.  J.  Zeilinger.  A  fifth  professor  is  to  be 
elected  in  1916. 

Wartburg  College  dates  from  the  year  1868,  when 
it  started  as  an  independent  institution  at  Galena, 
111.  In  consequence  of  the  Klindworth  difficulties,  it 
was  removed  to  Mendota  in  1875,  and  conducted  there 
as  a  preparatory  department  of  the  seminary.  In 
1885  it  was  combined  with  the  Teachers'  Seminary  at 
Waverly,  la.  Since  1894  it  has  been  located  at  Clinton, 
la.  The  Teachers'  Seminary  at  Waverly,  la.,  founded 
in  1879,  is  conducted  in  connection  with  an  academy 
and  a  pro-seminary.  Institutions  of  different  districts 
are  located  at  Sterling,  Neb.,  Eureka,  S.  Dak.,  and 
Seguin,  Tex. 


§    29.°  MISSIONARY    ACTI\  ITIES.  377 

5.  Missionary  Activities.  The  synod  has  at  all 
times  considered  it  of  utmost  importance  and  worthy 
of  strenuous  efforts  to  organize  scattered  Lutherans 
into  congregations.  Special  funds  for  missions  and 
the  support  of  missionaries  were  formerly  unknown, 
but  since  1879  this  matter  has  been  definitely  ar- 
ranged. At  first  there  was  a  general  board  and  later 
district  boards  which  conducted  the  work  of  missions. 
Loehe  also  encouraged  the  work  of  foreign  missions 
in  the  Iowa  Synod.  An  Indiein  mission  was  organized, 
the  financial  support  for  which  was  received  from 
Germany.  But  on  account  of  Indian  insurrections 
during  the  Civil  War,  this  work  had  to  be  abandoned. 
(See  Geo.  J.  Fritschel,  History  pp.  347-359).  When 
the  General  Council  began  its  missionary  labors  in 
India,  Iowa  took  part  in  the  enterprise.  Later  it  co- 
operated with  Neuendettelsau  in  the  mission  of  New 
Guinea.  Some  individual  gifts  are  being  contributed 
to  the  Council,  to  Leipzig  and  to  Hermannsburg.  The 
Synod  has  orphans*  homes  at  W'averly.  la..  Toledo, 
Ohio,  and  Mn';ratiTu\  la.  The  orphans'  homes  are  con- 
nected \\  itli  homes  for  the  aged. 

6.  Publications.  Like  other  synods,  Iowa  has  a 
number  of  publications:  "K  i  r  c  h  e  n  b  1  a  1 1"  (semi- 
monthly) ;  "Kirchliche  Zeitschrift"  (monthly)  ;  "Ju- 
gendblatt ;"  "Lutheran  Herald"  (monthly)  ;  it  has 
recently  devoted  considerable  attention  to  Sunday- 
school  literature.  The  Wartburg  Publishing  House 
has  its  offices  at  Chicago  and  its  press  equipments  and 
storehouse  at  Wavcrly,  la. 


378  THE    IOWA    SYNOD.  §    29 

Biographical  Notes. 

The  Fritschel  family.  The  Brothers  Fritschel,  descend- 
ing from  an  ancient  family  of  armor-makers  of  Nuremberg 
(which  can  be  traced  back  to  1632),  were  the  first  theolo- 
gians of  their  family.  Their  parents  belonged  to  the  circle 
of  believers  in  touch  with  Loehe.  The  two  brothers  re- 
ceived their  training  under  Bauer  and  Loehe  at  Nuremberg 
and  Neuendettelsau ;  Gottfried  was  sent  to  Erlangen,  where 
for  a  year  he  studied  under  Hofmann,  Thomasius  and  Har- 
nack.  In  1853  Sigmund  emigrated  to  America,  took 
part  in  the  organization  of  the  Iowa  Synod  and  assisted 
Grossmann  in  the  work  of  the  seminary.  Financial  support 
being  meager,  he  took  charge  of  a  congregation  at  Platte- 
ville.  Wis.,  whence  he  started  successful  missionary  work. 
Later,  at  the  urgent  request  of  Grabau,  he  served  the 
Buffalo  Synod  congregation  at  Detroit  and  joined  the  Buf- 
falo Synod.  In  1857  the  younger  brother  was  called  to  the 
seminary,  and  Sigmund  returned  to  it  a  year  later.  The 
two  brothers  worked  side  by  side  most  effectively  at  St. 
Sebald,  Iowa,  and  at  Mendota,  until  they  were  parted  by 
death.  Their  influence  extended  far  beyond  the  bounds  of 
the  synod  whose  leadership  made  them  famous.  Gottfried 
died  at  Mendota,  111.,  in  1889,  and  Sigmund  at  Dubuque  in 
1900.  Both  were  prolific  writers  and  regular  contributors 
to  "Kirchenblatt,"  "Brobstsche  Monatshefte"  and  "Kirch- 
liche  Zeitschrift."  Gottfried  is  the  author  of  the  "Passions- 
betrachtungen,"  "History  of  Indian  Missions  in  the  17th 
Century,"  and  a  series  of  pamphlets.  At  the  twenty-fifth 
anniversary  of  the  synod  both  received  the  degree  of  D.  D. 
from  Muhlenberg  College.  Their  sons,  too,  have  become 
prominent  in  the  Iowa  Synod.  The  two  oldest  sons  of  Sig- 
mund died  soon  after  their  ordination.  John  Fritschel  has 
been  professor  in  the  college  since.  1888  and  its  director 
since  1904.  His  brother  Max  has  been  professor  in  the 
seminary  since  1892  and  its  director  since  1906.  Gottfried's 
son,  George  J.  Fritschel,  having  served  congregations  at 
West  Superior,  Wis.,  Galveston,  Texas  (causing  the  subse- 
quent union  of  the  Texas  and  Iowa  Synods),  Loganville  and 
Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  now  occupies  his  father's  chair  in  Wart- 


§    2i.j  niOGR-M'HICAL    NOTES.  3/9 

burg  Seminary,  vacated  by  the  death  of  Prof.  Wm.  Proehl. 
He  is  the  author  of  a  German  "History  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America"  and  of  "Schriftlehre  von  der  Gnadcn- 
wahl."  His  brother  Hermann  is  the  successful  manager  of 
Passavant's  charitable  institution;  Gottlob  is  pastor  at  Xew 
Hampton,  Iowa,  and  Conrad  a  teaclier  at  the  college  at 
Clinton,   Iowa. 

George  Martin  Grostmann,  born  in  Hesse  (1823),  grad- 
uated from  the  Teachers'  Seminary  of  Friedberg  at  the  age 
of  19  and  served  that  institution  as  assistant  teacher.  Later 
he  was  instructor  in  the  private  schools  of  Rottheim  and 
Lollar.  Here  he  was  converted  through  the  influence  of 
Pastor  Dieffenbach,  and  placed  himself,  though  married,  at 
the  disposal  of  Loehe  for  the  American  service.  After 
studying  theology  at  Erlangen.  he  went  to  Saginaw,  Mich., 
as  founder  and  inspector  of  the  Teachers'  Seminary.  After 
the  organization  of  the  Iowa  Synod,  he  was  president  of 
that  body  for  thirty-nine  years.  He  was  president  of  the 
seminary  until  1875.  when,  on  account  of  his  health,  he 
resigned  for  a  time,  but,  having  recovered,  started  the 
Teachers'  Seminary.  From  1885  to  1895  he  was  also  presi- 
dent of  Wartburg  College  at  Waverly,  la.  He  retired  in 
1894,  and  died  three  years  later  on  the  forty-third  anni- 
versary of  the  synod  which  he  had  served  in  many  ways. 

Johannes  Deindoerfer,  D.  D^  born,  1828.  at  Rosstall, 
near  Xcuendcttelsau.  received  his  theological  education  at 
Nuremberg  and  Xeucndettelsau.  On  September  14,  1851,  he 
was  (like  Grossman  and  S.  Fritschel)  ordained  as  "ship- 
chaplain"  by  Pastor  Meinel  of  Hamburg.  He  was  pastor  of 
a  congregation  ("Frankenhilf")  near  Saginaw.  Together 
with  Grossman,  he  emigrated  to  Iowa  in  1853,  and  became 
pastor  of  "St.  Sebald  at  the  Spring"  (Iowa),  serving  there 
until  1856;  pastor  at  Madison,  Wis.,  until  1860;  at  West 
Union,  Iowa,  until  1865;  Toledo,  O.,  until  1870;  Defiance,  O., 
until  1889;  Ripon,  Wis.,  until  1894.  As  long  as  Grossmann 
was  president,  Deindoerfer  served  as  vice  president,  and 
succeeded  him  as  the  salaried  president.  For  si.xteen  years 
he  was  also  president  of  a  district.  His  many  talents  and 
his    able    pen    were    devoted    to    the    service    of    the    synod, 


380  THE    IOWA    SYNOD.  §    29 

whose  distinctive  features  he  emphasized  as  a  true  disciple 
of  Loehe.  Noteworthy  among  his  books  are  his  "Geschichte 
der  Iowa  Synode,"  and  also  his  three  "Denkschriften,"  1864, 
1879,  1904. 

F.  Richter,  D.  D.  (General  President),  born  in  1852,  is 
the  son  of  a  pastor  in  Saxony.  Private  tutoring  and  a 
course  in  the  gymnasium  preceded  his  theological  training, 
which  he  received  at  St.  Sebald  (1870-1874).  A  visit  of  S. 
Fritschel  at  his  father's  house  was  the  cause  of  his  emigra- 
tion. He  attended  the  universities  of  Erlangen  and  Leipzig 
1874-1876.  After  his  return  to  America,  he  became  assistant 
teacher  in  the  seminarj'^  'and  college  at  Mendota.  He  took 
charge  of  the  congregation  in  the  city  (1879-1894).  From 
1887  to  1904  he  was  president  of  the  Southern  District.  In 
1894  he  was  elected  president  of  Clinton  College,  holding 
that  position  until  1902,  when  he  became  editor  of  "Kirchen- 
blatt."  Since  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  Synod  in  1904 
he  has  been  the  president  of  the  Iowa  Synod,  being  the 
third  in  this  honorable  succession.  In  1901  Thiel  College 
conferred  on  him  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity. 

Prof.  John  Michael  Reu,  D.  D.,  born  at  Diebach  (near 
Rotenburg),  Bavaria,  in  1869,  received  his  education  in  the 
Latin  School  of  Oettingen,  through  private  tutors  and  at 
the  Mission  School  of  Neuendettelsau.  He  came  to  America 
in  1889,  was  called  to  Rockfalls,  111.,  in  1890,  and  to  the  fac- 
ulty of  the  Dubuque  Seminary  in  1899.  Among  his  literary 
output  we  would  mention  "Old  Testament  Pericopes," 
1901-6;  "Katechismusauslegung,"  1904;  "Wartburg  Lehrmit- 
tel,"  8  small  volumes ;  "Catechetics  and  Ethics,"  1915,  and 
especially  "Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  kirchlichen  Unter- 
richts  zwischen  1530  und  1600"  (1904),  four  volumes  being 
published  up  to  the  present.  In  recognition  of  this  book  the 
University  of  Erlangen  (1910)  conferred  on  him  the  title  of 
"Dr.  Theol."  —  a  distinction  not  shared  by  any  American 
since  1845  (Philip  SchafT).  Beginning  with  the  third  volume, 
this  great  work  by  Dr.  Reu  is  being  financed  with  the  aid 
of  the  Society  of  the  History  of  the  Reformation  and  of  the 
Berlin  Kultusministerium.  The  first  half  of  Volume  V,  com- 
prising 500  pages,  has  been  published.    A  sixth  volume  will 


§    jg  UIOCKArUICAL    NOTES.  381 

conclude  the  work.  Since  1905  Dr.  Reu  has  been  the  editor 
of  "'Kirchliche  Zcitschrift,"  which  is  the  theological  monthly 
magazine  of  the  Iowa  Synod.  He  is  also  a  contributor  to 
the  "Katechetische  Zcitschrift,"  "Archiv  fuer  Reiormations- 
geschichte,"  "Zcitschrift  fuer  Geschichte  der  Erziehung  und 
des  Unterrichtswesens  in  Deutschland,"  etc. 


§  30.     The  Buffalo  Synod. 

Vjv:h\.  iiioiulis  after  the  departure  of  the  Saxons, 
Pastor  J.  A.  Grabau  and  liis  Erfurt  congregation  emi- 
grated to  America  (1839).  Among  the  members  of 
his  flock  was  H.  von  Rohr,  captain  of  the  Prussian 
artillery.  The  majority  of  these  "Prussian  Luther- 
ans" settled  in  the  neighborhood  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 
Grabau,  having  discovered  the  spurious  character  of  a 
union  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  took  offence 
at  the  royal  decree  which  abolished  the  old  church 
books.  Having  requested  the  privilege  of  retaining 
tlie  Lutheran  formula,  he  was  suspended  and  im- 
prisoned, but  refused  to  yield.  His  congregation 
urged  emigration  to  America,  where  religious  freedom 
seemed  to  be  assured.  Grabau,  still  hoping  that 
Prussia  would  recede  from  her  attitude,  refused  at 
flrst,  but  when  a  written  statement  was  made  by 
Frederick  William  HI.  to  the  effect  that  Lutheranism 
would  be  tolerated  only  within  the  bounds  of  the 
union,  he  left  for  America,  and  settled  at  Buffalo  in 
the  fall  of  1839. 

During  the  time  of  his  troubles  he  had  come  into 
touch  with  the  Lutherans  of  the  Uckermark  and  of 
Pomerania,  who  were  following  the  lead  of  Pastors 
Ehren>troem    and    Kindermann.     It   was   hoped    that 


382  THE    BUFFALO    SYNOD.  §    30 

they  might  decide  to  emigrate.  When  the  king  died 
(June  7,  1840),-^'  his  successor  (Frederick  WilHam 
IV.),  discarding  his  father's  methods,  conceded  cer- 
tain rights  to  the  Lutheran  Church.  This  halted  the 
emigration  project  of  the  Prussian  Lutherans,  espe- 
cially as  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  Prussia 
(Breslau  Synod)  declared  against  emigration.  Soon 
afterwards  the  school  question  roused  opposition,  be- 
cause Lutheran  children  were  forced  to  attend  the 
schools  of  the  Union,  and  Lutherans  were  not  per- 
mitted to  employ  their  own  teachers.  While  the 
Br^eslau  people  finally  agreed  to  this  rule  and  privately 
instructed  their  children  in  religion,  Kindermann's 
and  Ehrenstroem's  followers  saw  in  .such  a  submission 
a  denial  of  the  faith.  They  insisted  on  emigration. 
Their  faith  in  the  Breslau  authorities  seemed  to  have 
been  shaken  when  these  conferred  upon  the  elders 
part  of  the  pastoral  care  and  the  office  of  the  keys, 
and  especially  when  they  claimed  the  right  to  depose 
ministers.  The  warning  against  emigration  was 
looked  upon  as  a  chiliastic  heresy.  While  Kindermann 
and  Ehrenstroem  bowed  to  these  decrees,  their  con- 
gregations rebelled.  This  finally  resulted  in  a  with- 
drawal from  the  Breslau  S^'nod  and  a  subsequent  de- 
cision to  emigrate.  The  Breslau  Church  authorities 
refused  communion  to  the  insurgents,  and  tried  to 
prevent  emigration  by  transferring  Kindermann  from 
Pomerania  to  Breslau.  But  the  congregations  re- 
mained firm.  In  1842  two  emigrant  organizations 
were  formed.  In  several  ships  the  Pomeranians  left 
Stettin  for  New  York,  where  they  arrived  in  Septem- 


2«^  On   the   same  day   when   the   church  of  the  emigrants   was  being 
dedicated  at  Buffalo. 


§    30  THK    nri  TALO    SYNOD.  383 

her.  while  the  Uckermark  people  went  hy  way  of 
Hamhurg-  to  Buffalo.  Ehrenstroem  meanwhile  was 
arrested  in  Hamburg  on  account  of  his  sermons  con- 
demning the  Union,  and  was  turned  over  to  Prussia ; 
he  followed  his  flock  in  1844.  -""  Kindermann  and  his 
pco])le  settled  in  the  forests  near  Milwaukee.  Kinder- 
mann died  (at  Kirchhain)  in  1854.  Pastor  Krause  was 
located  at  Freistadt. 

During-  turl)ulent  times  like  these  the  Synod  of 
Buffalo  came  into  being.  Its  first  meeting  was  held 
at  Milwaukee  and  Freistadt,  Wis.,  June  12-15,  1845. 
Four  pastors  were  present :  Grabau.  Kindermann, 
Krause  and  H.  von  Rohr.  Pastor  Brohm  of  New 
York  was  invited  to  attend,  but  declined  because  his 
friends  in  and  around  St.  Louis  had  not  received  an 
invitation.  While  the  conference  decided  on  the  name, 
"Synod  of  Lutheran  Emigrants  from  Prussia,"  it  was 
commonly  known  as  the  Buffalo  Synod.  The  latter 
name  it  afterwards  adopted. 

As  early  as  1840  Pastor  C.rabau  sent  a  pastoral 
letter  (written,  not  printed)  to  vacant  congregations 
warning  them  against  ministers  who  had  not  been 
properly  ordained  (§  23,  I,  1).  This  letter,  having 
been  sent  to  St.  Louis,  caused  the  conflict  between 
("■rabau  and  Walther.  who  scented  in  it  thdse  hierarch- 
ical tendencies  which  he  had  experienced  amid  bitter 
circumstances.  In  consequence  of  this  controversy 
^Missouri  opposition  churches  were  established  ("rab- 
ble congregations,"  according  to  Grabau)  in  the  terri- 


*•  Soon  he  became  .i  victim  of  strange  hallucinations,  tried  to  per- 
form miracles  and  eventually  loit  his  faith  altogether.  lie  travelled 
from  Wisconsin  to  New  York,  tlicncc  to  .San  Francisco  and  died  in  a 
poor  house.  By  excommunicating  him,  Grabau  had  dcprivcil  him  of 
any    kind  of  influence   among   the    Prussians. 


384  THE   BUFFALO    SYNOD.  §    30 

tory  of  the  Buffalo  Synod.  The  strife  between  the 
two  factions  became  exceedingly  caustic  and  personal. 
In  1853  Grabau  visited  Germany  for  the  purpose  of 
winning  friends  to  his  cause.  Temporarily  he  main- 
tained pleasamt  relations  with  the  Iowa  Synod,  trans- 
ferring congregations  around  Madison  to  that  synod, 
and  calling  Fritschel  and  Doerfler  to  vacant  Buffalo 
Synod  churches.  But  in  the  controversy  between 
Iowa  and  Missouri,  Grabau  sided  with  the  latter. 
Owing  to  its  many  peculiarities  and  Grabau's  unyield- 
ing temper,  the  Buffalo  Synod  did  not  grow  rapidly, 
even  though  a  theological  seminary,  with  Grabau  as 
instructor,  had  been  established. 

In  1886  von  Rohr  and  Grabau  failed  to  agree. 
Two  factions  arose  in  the  Buffalo  Synod,  each  claim- 
ing to  be  the  pure  original  synod.  A  colloquium, 
held  at  Buffalo  betAveen  the  Missourians  and  the  nu- 
merically superior  faction  of  von  Rohr,  resulted  in 
the  admission  of  Hochstetter  and  eleven  others  into 
the  Missouri  Synod,  while  the  smaller  portion  of 
von  Rohr's  party  continued  to  exist  until  1877.  After- 
wards a  part  of  it  returned  to  the  Grabau  faction, 
while  others  cast  in  their  lot  with  various  other 
synods.  Von  Rohr's  son  became  influential  in  the 
Wisconsin  Synod. 

Patterned  after  the  old  Saxon  and  Pomeranian 
constitutions,  the  Ministerium  (ministers  only)  chose 
a  "senior  ministerii"  as  their  synodical  leader.  This 
title,  however,  was  changed  into  "president"  at  the 
meeting  in  1886.  Buffalo  declares,  in  opposition  to 
Missouri,  that  ordination  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
"rite  vocatus"  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  (Art.  XIV) 


§    ^O  THE    BUFFALO    SYNOD.  385 

and  tliat  the  Churih  is  essc'iitially  visible  and  has  in- 
visible glory.  -''" 

Like  its  opponent,  the  Missonri  vSynod,  Eultalo  is 
very  rigid  in  doetrine  and  practice.  Its  pastors  are 
pledged  to  all  the  hooks  of  the  Concordia.  The 
eleventh  article  of  the  Augustana  is  literally  inter- 
preted ;  so  that  every  congregation  has  private  ab- 
solution, public  absolution  not  having  been  permitted 
until  1891.  Gross  sins  are  punished  by  excommuni- 
cation, and  the  offender  can  be  restored  only  after 
public  confession  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation. 
No  member  is  allowed  to  belong  to  a  secret  order. 

A  revision  of  Buffalo's  synodical  constitution  in 
1886  resulted  in  a  quiet  setting  aside  of  many  of  its 
peculiarities.  The  synod  extends  from  New  York 
to  Minnesota,  and  has  two  conference  meetings  bi- 
annually.  while  the  whole  synod  convenes  once  in 
three  years. 


-■"These   statement  >   ilo   not   indicate   wlietlicr    Buffalo   considers   the 
feature   of   invisihilify   cs'^cntial    to   the   true   rhurc)i. 


25 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  NORWEGIANS  AND  DANES. 


§  31.    The  Norwegians. 
I.     CONDITION  OF  THE  CHURCH   IN  NORWAY. 

In  order  to  understand  the  development  of  the 
Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  we  should 
have  some  prior  knowledge  *of  the  condition  of  the 
Church  in  Norway.    This  we  will  proceed  to  give. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  a 
wave  of  rationalism  deluged  the  Church  of  Norway, 
as  it  had  other  European  countries,  and  put  its  mark 
on  ever}^  feature  of  that  country's  spiritual  life.  Then 
there  came  an  awakening  over  the  whole  land  through 
the  earnest  preaching  of  a  pious  layman,  Hans  Niel- 
sen Hauge  (1771-1844).  He  was  converted  in  1796, 
and  soon  began  to  preach  the  Word  to  the  people. 
He  traveled  all  over  the  land,  mostly  on  foot,  and 
everywhere  he  went  his  labor  bore  rich  fruitage.  He 
also  induced  other  Christian  laymen  to  take  up  the 
work. 

He  did  not  put  himself  directly  in  opposition  to 
the  clergy ;  but,  while  their  sermons  were  permeated 
with  rationalistic  views,  leading  to  religious  indif- 
ference, if  not  to  open  ungodliness,  he  preached  the 
gospel  in  its  purity  and  simplicity,  telling  sinners  to 
repent,  find  forgiveness  in,  Jesus  Christ,  and  live  a 
new  life.     In  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ministers 

(386) 


§    3'''     tDNDITIDN    OF    THK    tllUkCH     IN     NORWAY.  387 

llauge  was  a  fanatic,  and  so  they  put  every  possible 
obstruction  in  his  way.  By  their  influence  the  gov- 
ernment, in  1804,  had  him  arrested  for  preaching  in 
public,  which  was  forbidden  to  laymen  by  an  old 
section  of  the  law.  On  account  of  the  examination  of 
six  hundred  witnesses  and  other  delays,  his  case 
dragged  on  for  years.  Meanwhile  he  was  confined  to 
jail.  In  all,  he  spent  ten  years  in  prison,  and  came 
out  broken  in  health.  During  the  last  eight  years  of 
his  life  he  resided  on  his  farm,  called  Bredtvedt,  near 
Cliristiania.  Norway,  directing  from  there  the  religious 
movement  be  had  inaugurated.  He  died  March  29, 
1842,  receiving  honor  at  the  last  from  both  friend 
and  foe. 

The  persecution  and  death  of  Hauge  did  not 
slacken  or  quencli  the  tire  he  had  kindled.  Others 
took  his  place  and  continued  the  work.  Less  broad- 
minded  than  their  great  leader,  they  sometimes 
showed  a  more  unfriendly  feeling  toward  the  clergy 
than  he  did.  but  there  was  no  separation,  for  Hauge 
was  a  faithful  JvUtheran.  and  earnestly  advised  his 
friends  not  to  leave  the  Church. 

Eventually  the  younger  ministers  (as  was  the 
case  in  Germany)  felt  the  incoming  tide  of  the  new 
life.  T'rofessor  Stener  Johannes  Stenersen  (who 
taught  in  Upsala,  1814-35).  Svend  Rorckmand  Horsleb 
(1814-36).  Rev.  Wilhelm  Andreas  Wexel.  Prof.  Karl 
Paul  Caspari  (1847-92),  and  Gisle  Johnsen  (1849-94), 
all  exerted  a  great  and  salutary  influence  on  the  voung 
thenldgians.  They  were  strictly  conservative  Lu- 
therans, so  that  there  should  have  been  the  greatest 
harmony  between  them  and  the  Christian  laymen ; 
but  unfortunatelv  their  verv  conservatism  was  viewed 


388  THE   NOKVVEr.IANS.  §    3i,II 

as  a  hierarchial  tendency  by  some  of  the  friends  of 
Hauge.  To  this  may  be  added,  that  many  of  the 
clergy  did  not  look  with  favor  on  the  lay  preaching 
so  dear  to  the  Haugians.  The  difference  between 
these  two  alHed  wings  became  evident  in  its  American 
development. 

II.    ORGANIZATION  OF  NORWEGIAN   SYNODS. 

in    the    year    1839   a    young   Norwegian    traveller 
published   a   book    telling   about   his    observations    in 
America.    This  gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  emigration 
already  begun.     Wisconsin  and  Northern  Illinois,  at 
that  time  the  wild  Northwest,  seemed  to  be  the  most 
attractive    localities    to   the    Norwegians.      Later   on 
they  also  moved  into  the  border  states  of  Iowa  and 
Minnesota.     It  is  said  that  in  1847  there  were  15,000 
Norwegians  in  Wisconsin  and  33,000  in  Illinois.    These 
figures   may  be  too  high,  but  the   number   certainly 
was    not    insignificant.      Among   them    were    several 
"Friends    of   Hauge."      For   mutual    edification   they 
met  in  their  log  cabins,  singing,  praying,  and  reading 
a  sermon  or  listening  to  a  lay  preacher.     One  of  the 
most    prominent    of   these    was    Elling    Eielsen,   who 
was  born  in  Vos,  Norway,  Sept.  19,  1804,  and  came 
to  America  in  1839.     He  had  been  preaching  both  in 
Norway  and  Denmark,  and  continued  his  work  here. 
He  held  his  first  meeting  in  the  house  of  an  English 
woman  in  Chicago,  and  went  from  there  to  Fox  River, 
IlHnois.  where  he  found  a  large  Norwegian  settlement. 
Here  he  built  a  house,  and  used  the  second  floor  for 
meetings.     On  Oct.  3.  1843,  he  was  ordained  by  Rev. 
Hoffman,  the  Lutheran  pastor  at  Duncan's  Grove,-'** 

^^  This  was  the  famous  "Hans  Buschbauer,"  noted  for  his  articles 
on  agriculture,  contributed  to  the  Milwaukee  "Germania."  At  one  time 
he  was  vice  governor  of  Illinois. 


§    ^iM     ORGANIZATION    OF    NORVVliGIAN    SYNODS.  389 

about  twenty  miles  north  of  Chicago.  Kielsen  traveled 
everywhere  among  the  Norwegian  settlements,  and 
established  many  preaching  stations. 

The  First  Synod.  The  need  of  some  kind  of  or- 
ganization was  soon  felt.  The  "friends  from  far 
and  near"  therefore  met  at  Jefferson  Prairie,  Rock 
County,  Wisconsin,  April  13-14,  1846,  and  organized 
the  '"Kvangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  America,"  a 
rather  high-sounding  name.  Kielsen  was  now  as- 
sisted by  two  young  men,  Ole  Andrewsen  and  Paul 
Andersen.  For  a  time  they  worked  together  har- 
moniously ;  but  after  a  while  discord  arose  over 
liturgical  forms  and  certain  doctrines,  and  in  1848 
a  separation  took  place,  -''  leaving  Eielsen  alone. 

The  Second  Synod.  The  mission  work  of  the  Cer- 
nian  Lutherans  evidently  brought  some  of  the  young- 
clergy  in  Norway  to  think  about  the  duty  they  owed 
to  their  brethren  in  the  faith  across  the  sea.  A 
Norwegian  minister  writes  to  Pastor  Loehe :  -'- 
"Since  my  visit  with  you  we,  too,  have  taken  an  in- 
terest in  American  affairs.  You  know,  of  course, 
that  several  thousand  Norwegians  have  emigrated  to 
Illinois  and  Wisconsin,  where  they  have  lived  until 
now  without  the  service  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel. 
During  the  last  summer,  however,  a  young  Dane  (C. 
L.  Clausen),  a  truly  pious  and  earnest  man,  with 
sound  Lutheran  convictions,  went  over  there,  and 
has  just  been  ordained.  And  this  month  Rev.  J.  C. 
W.   Dietrichsen,  a  Norwegian,   who   was   with    nie   in 


"'These  two  assistants  fir.it  joined  the  Franckean  .Synoil,  later  the 
Synod  of  Illinois,  and,  together  with  the  .Swedes,  oreanizod  the  Scan- 
dinavian-Auffustana   Synod    in    1R60. 

"Kirchliche    MitteilmiKcn,    .\o.    2.    1844. 


390  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,11 

the  greater  part  of  my  travels  in  Germany,  will  also 
go  to  help  our  beloved  countrymen  in  North  Am- 
erica. A  Christian  man  here  (Sorensen)  has  offered 
him  3,000  Gylden  ($500)  for  that  purpose.  It  would 
be  very  desirable  that  German  and  Norwegian  Lu- 
therans should  work  hand  in  hand  in  America."  -'^ 

From  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  in  Muskego, 
Racine  County,  Wis.,-''*  a  delegation  came  to  Rev. 
Krause,  in  Freystadt,  asking  him  to  ordain  a  young 
man,  by  the  name  of  Claus  Lauriz  Clausen,  to  the 
ministry  of  the  gospel.  He  had  been  called  as  their 
pastor  Sept.  13,  1843,  which  is  regarded  as  the  Birth- 
day of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
Spiritual  work  had  been  going  on  for  some  years, 
but  this  was  the  first  time  Norwegian  Lutheran  Chris- 
tians came  together  to  form  a  congregation  and  have 
the  ministry  of  the  gospel  established  among  them. 
Having  passed  a  creditable  examination,  Clausen  w^as 
ordained  on  the  eighteenth  of  October  of  the  same 
year,  in  the  presence  of  the  Muskego  congregation. 
From  that  time  ordained  pastors  arrived  from  Nor- 
way, among  them  the  following:  J.  W.  C.  Dietric, 
1844;  H.  A.  Stub,  1848;  A.  C.  Preus,  1850;  H.  A. 
Preus,  N.  O.  Brandt  and  G.  F.  Dietrichsen,  1851 ; 
J.  A.  Ottesen,  1852;  and  U.  V.  Koren,  1853.  These 
men,  wnth  delegates  from  their  congregations,  or- 
ganized, in  1853,  the  Norwegian  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  of  America. 

The  Third  Synod.  Revs.  P.  Andersen  and  O.  An- 
drewsen,  who  severed  their  connection  with  E.  Eielsen 
(see  above),  united  with  others  in  the  Northern  Illi- 

^^  He  managed  this  fund  so  carefully  as  to  be  able  to  return  $168 
to  the  donor. 

"*  Kirchliche   Mitteilungen,   No.   4,   1845. 


§    T,l,ll     ORGANIZATION    OF    NORWEGIAN    SYNODS.  39I 

nois  Synod,  and.  with  the  Swedish  pastor  Esbjorn, 
formed  a  Scandinavian  conference.  In  the  hftics  sev- 
eral Other  ministers,  both  Norwegians  and  Swedes, 
ioined  this  synod,  hut  in  1860  lliey  all  witlulrcw 
and  organized  the  Scandinavian  Augrustana  Synod. 
The  meeting  was  held  in  Rev.  O.  Andrewsen's  church 
at  Jefferson  Prairie,  Rock  County,  Wisconsin.  The 
two  nationalities  worked  in  perfect  unity,  but,  as  the 
membership  increased,  the  Norwegians  asked  per- 
mission to  form  a  synod  of  their  own,  to  which  the 
Swedes  willingly  gave  their  consent. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Norwegian  Lutherans  in 
America  were  divided  from  the  very  beginning,  and. 
as  we  shall  see,  more  divisions  came  later. 

HI.     HISTORY  OF  INDIVIDUAL  NORWEGIAN  SYNODS. 

1.     Hauge's    Synod. 

In  1850  a  young  man  with  a  gtmd  education,  P.  A. 
Rasmussen,  came  to  the  Eielsen  Church,  and  taught 
parochial  school  first  at  Necnah,  then  at  Jefferson 
Prairie.  Wisconsin,  and  finally  at 'Fox  River  or  Lis- 
luin,  Illinois.  The  congregation  here  called  him  as 
their  pastor  in  1852.  Before  taking  charge,  he  de- 
sired a  better  theological  training,  for  which  pur- 
pose he  went  to  the  Lutheran  Seminary  at  Ft.  Wayne, 
Indiana.  On  Palm-Sunday,  1854,  he  was  ordained 
by  Prof.  W.  Sihler  and  Prof.  F.  .\.  Craemer.  He  as- 
sisted Eielsen,  who  had  no  organizing  talents  and 
placed  little  value  on  form  and  order.  But  Rasmusscn 
had  a  clearer  view,  and  pointed  out  many  things  in  the 
constitution  that  needed  improvement.  This  offended 
Eielsen.  He  looked  upon  the  young  assistant  with 
susi)icion  at  once,  fearing  he  might  bring  about  new 


392  THE    NORWEGIANS.       •  §    31,111,^ 

and  dangerous  changes.  Their  relation  became  more 
and  more  strained,  and  after  a  stormy  meeting  at 
Primrose,  Wisconsin,  in  1856,  Rasmussen  and  his 
friends  left  Eielsen.  In  1862  he  joined  the  Norwegian 
Synod.  For  the  second  time  Eielsen  stood  alone; 
but  he  soon  ordained  some  of  his  most  capable  lay 
preachers,  and  in  1861  there  were  four  ordained  min- 
isters in  his  synod.  The  field  also  increased  and  the 
church  grew;  but,  much  to  the  annoyance  of  Eiel- 
sen, the  people  continued  to  find  fault  with  the  con- 
stitution, and  demanded  a  revision.  At  the  meeting 
in  1874,  it  was  decided  that  the  ministers  should 
meet  at  Minneapolis  in  July,  take  the  matter  under 
consideration,  and  report  to  the  next  annual  conven- 
tion. The  report  contained  both  a  draught  for  an 
entirely  new  constitution  and  a  revision  of  the  old 
one.  For  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony  those  who 
were  in  favor  of  a  new  instrument  withdrew  their 
proposition,  and  declared  themselves  satisfied  with 
a  revision.  But  Eielsen  thought  they  went  too  far, 
and  therefore  he  held  a  private  consultation  with 
seven  of  his  friends.  They  agreed  to  a  few  minor 
changes,  and  said  the  synod  might  add  explanatory 
notes  to  obscure  paragraphs.  To  prevent  a  schism, 
this  was  agreed  upon.  So  amended,  the  constitution 
was  temporarily  adopted.  The  name  was  changed 
to  Hauge's  Synod.  Although  Eielsen  and  his  friends 
had  given  their  consent  to  the  revision,  they  held  a 
meeting  in  Jackson  County,  Minnesota,  during  the 
winter  of  1875,  and  decided  to  stand  by  the  old  con- 
stitution as  it  was,  thereby  organizing  themselves 
into  a  church  body.  They  elected  Eielsen  as  presi- 
dent. 


§    3^411,'  THE    HAUGE    SYNOD.  393 

By  this  time  Eiclsen  was  growing  old,  and  so 
did  not  seem  to  realize  the  import  of  all  that  was 
taking  place.  He  came  to  the  next  annual  conven- 
tion of  Hauge's  Synod,  looking  upon  himself  as  a 
member  of  that  body.  It  might  have  been  just  as 
well  if  the  meeting  had  recognized  him  as  a  member, 
harmless  as  he  now  was ;  but  when  they  asked  him 
about  his  connection  with  the  Jackson  party,  they 
could  get  no  satisfactory  answer.  A  committee  which 
interviewed  him  three  times  privately  succeeded  no 
better.  Before  his  case  was  decided,  he  sent  a  let- 
ter to  the  Synod  —  probably  written  by  others  —  ac- 
cusing it  of  harboring  new  and  dangerous  tendencies 
toward  hierarchy  and  church  formality.  This  indi- 
cated his  attitude.  A  resolution  was  then  passed 
by  the  Synod  regretting  the  action  of  Eielsen  and  his 
followers  and  declaring  that  fellowship  with  them 
must  be  looked  upon  as  broken.  A  later  attempt  to 
restore  harmony  also  failed,  because  Kielsen  insisted 
that  synod  must  acknowledge  its  sins,  and  come  back 
to  the  old  constitution.  This  the  synod  could  not  do. 
Eielsen  died  in  1883,  but  his  "old  friends"  still  con- 
tinued as  a  separate  organization. 

The  year  1876  turns  a  new  leaf  in  the  history  of 
Hauge's  Synod.  It  then  had  twenty-three  ministers, 
and  from  that  time  made  steady  progress  in  all 
branches  of  activity.  On  the  whole,  a  spirit  of  peace 
prevailed.  But  in  the  nineties  a  controversy  arose 
between  H.  H.  Bergsland,  Professor  of  Systematic 
Theology  at  the  Red  Wing  Seminary,  and  Rev.  O.  S. 
Meland,  who  also  had  been  a  professor  at  the  same 
institution  and  was  now  pastor  of  the  church  which 
the  seminary  people  attended.     Rev.  Meland  accused 


394  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,111,^ 

the  professor  of  false  doctrine.  For  a  time  the  dis- 
cussion grew  hot,  and  it  looked  as  if  there  might 
be  a  disruption;  but  the  synod  found  no  heresy 
in  Prof.  Bergsland's  teachings  (1896),  and  the  mat- 
ter subsided.  Bergsland  continued  as  professor  until 
his  death  (1907). 

The  official  organ  of  the  synod,  "Budbaeren" 
("The  Messenger"),  was  founded  as  a  monthly  in 
1863,  with  Revs.  O.  Hansen  and  O.  A.  Bergh  as 
editors.  For  many  years  it  has  been  published  as 
a  weekly.  The  synod  also  publishes  a  Norwegian 
Sunday-school  paper,  "Bornevennen"  ("The  Children's 
Friend"),  and,  in  conjunction  with  the  United  Church, 
also  an  English  Sunday-school  paper,  "The  Children's 
Companion." 

After  various  fruitless  attempts  a  Church  College 
and  Seminary  were  estabHshed  at  Red  Wing,  Min- 
nesota, in  1879.  Up  to  the  present  time  the  seminary 
has  graduated  165  students  and  the  college  266  (27 
with  the  A.  B.  degree).  The  seminary  faculty  consists 
of  Professors  E.  W.  Schmidt,  M.  A.,  O.  M.  Wee, 
and  G.  M.  Bruce,  M.  A.,  B.  D.  The  seminary  offers 
a  three  years'  and  the  college  a  four  years'  course, 
the  latter  culminating  in  the  A.  B.  degree.  The 
academy  (four  years)  prepares  for  the  college  and 
the  State  University.  There  is  also  a  commercial 
course  of  two  years.  These  institutions  were  orig- 
inally for  boys  and  young  men,  but  women  are  now 
admitted  to  the  college.  A  co-educational  school  is 
located  at  Jewell,  Iowa,  known  as  the  Jewell  Lutheran 
College. 

The  Synod  maintains  a  mission  in  China,  which 
was   started  in   1891,  with   Fancheng  as  the   center. 


§    31.111.^  THE    IIAUGE   SYNOD.  395 

In  this  city  it  has  a  high  school,  a  hospital,  a  dis- 
pensary, an  orphans'  home  and  schools  for  boys  and 
i^irls.  Besides  Fancheng,  there  are  the  three  main 
stations  of  Tszho.  Taipingtien  and  Sinyeh.  From 
these  centers  the  work  extends  to  forty  outer  sta- 
tions and  a  number  of  day  schools.  The  theological 
seminary  at  Hankow  is  being  jointly  maintained  by 
four  Lutheran  missionary  societies.  Pastor  O.  R. 
Wold,  of  Hauge's  Synod,  is  president.  The  synod 
has  17  missionaries,  among  whom  are  one  physician, 
one  nurse  and  five  ordained  pastors.  These  are  be- 
ing aided  by  some  90  native  workers  f Bible  Avomen 
and  teachers).  It  has  1,000  converts.  Home  missions 
are  being  carried  on  in  Canada  and  the  Northwest, 
30  missionaries  covering  the  ground.  It  supports  an 
orphans'  home  with  60  children  and  a  home  for  the 
aged  at  Beresford.  S.  Dak.,  where  30  old  men'  are 
being  cared  for. 

2.     The   Norwegian   Lutheran    Synod. 

This  synod  was  founded  in  1853  by  the  co-opera- 
tion of  Pastors  C.  L.  Claussen  (ordained  by  Pastor 
Krause).  A.  C.  Preus,  H.  A.  Stub.  H.  A.  Preus,  G.  F. 
Dietrichsen.  N.  Brandt  and  J.  A.  Ottensen.  All  of 
these  were  ordained  in  Norway  for  the  American 
tield.  From  the  very  start  the  synod  has  represented 
rigid  Lutheranism.  It  sustained  relations  with  the 
faithful  in  the  Norwegian  State  Church.  Soon  it 
made  common  cause  with  the  German  Lutherans  (a 
union  hoped  lur  at  Diclrichscn's  departure;  sec  let- 
ter to  Loehe).  At  first  no  attempt  was  made  to 
start  .1  seminary.  A  commission,  investi'j^ating  dif- 
ferent Lutheran  institutions,  decided  in  favor  of  the 


396  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,111,^ 

seminary  of  the  Missouri  Synod.  This  was  made 
the  seminary  of  the  synod,  and  Laur.  Larson,  in  1859, 
was  called  by  its  faculty  as  Norwegian  professor. 
But  when,  during  the  Civil  War  Walther's  sym- 
pathies were  with  the  South,  the  Norwegians,  op- 
posing secession  and  slavery,  took  offense,  withdrew 
from  St.  Louis,  and  opened  their  own  seminary  at 
Halfway  Creek,  La  Crosse  County,  Wisconsin,  with 
Larson  and  Schmidt  as  professors  and  an  enrollment 
of  eleven  scholars.  In  1862  it  was  transferred  to 
Decorah,  la.,  where  in  1864  the  corner-stone  was 
laid  for  a  building  costing  $100,000,  which  was  dedi- 
cated in  October,  1865.  In  1872  F.  A.  Schmidt  was 
sent  to  St.  Louis  as  Norwegian  professor.  When  the 
practical  department  of  St.  Louis  was  transferred  to 
Springfield,  Pastor  O.  B.  Asperheim  became  a  mem- 
ber of  the  faculty.  But  a  year  afterwards  the  Sol- 
diers' Orphans'  Home  of  Madison,  Wis.,  became  the 
home  of  this  practical  department.     Here  Professor 

F.  A.  Schmidt  was  appointed  second  professor.  ^__H. 

G.  Stub  came  to  this  seminary  as  a  successor  to  As|)er- 
heim  in  1878,  and  the  theoretical  department  of  St. 
Louis,  having  been  transferred,  was  united  with  the 
practical  department.  In  1872  the  synod  took  part 
in  the  forming  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  to  which 
it  belonged  until  1883.  For  a  long  time  it  was  the 
largest  Scandinavian  body  in  America.  Represent- 
ing conservative  Lutheranism,  it  had  to  resist  various 
doctrinal  onslaughts.  Professor  Asperheim  in  1878 
was  accused  of  heresy  by  the  Pastoral  Conference  in 
Milwaukee,  because  he  had  criticised  Walther.  Asper- 
heim resigned,  took  charge  of  a  New  York  congre- 
gation for  a  time,  and  eventually  returned  to  Norway. 


§    3I.IiI.'         'IHt:    NOKWEGIAN    LUTII.    SYNOD.  397 

The  most  violent  cuntr(ntTsy  within  the  synod 
raged  around  the  question  of  predestination  (1880). 
Schmidt  attacked  Walther's  theory  of  election  con- 
tained in  the  synodical  records  of  1877  and  1879. 
The  synod  was  divided  into  two  opp<i'^inm-  camps.  To 
prevent  a  division,  it  left  the  Synodiced  Conference 
in  1883.  However,  a  schism  occurred  seven  years 
later.  Schmidt  and  his  followers  (a  third  of  the 
synod)  withdrew  and  formed  a  "brotherhood."  In 
1890  they  united  with  other  bodies,  forming-  the  United 
Norwegian  Lutheran  Church. 

Though  greatly  weakened,  the  synod  continued 
its  work  with  much  zeal  and  extended  its  activities 
in  many  directions. 

It  has  put  great  emphasis  on  religious  training. 
Luther  College,  the  oldest  Scandinavian  High  School, 
located  at  Dccorah,  la.,  has  an  endowment  fund  of 
$250,000.  Luther  Seminary  (located  at  first  at  Madi- 
son, Wis.,  afterwards  at  Robbinsdalc,  Minn.,  and  now 
at  St.  Paul,  Minn.)  has  the  following  faculty :  Revs. 
Prof.  II.  G.  Stub,  D.  D.,  Joh.  Ylvisaker,  D.  D.,  O.  K. 
Brandt,  B.  A.,  and  E.  Hove,  B.  A.  It  has  an  average 
ittcndance  of  50  scholars  The  Lutheran  Teachers* 
Seminary,  of  Sioux  Falls,  S.  Dak.,  has  10  professors 
and  aljout  200  students.  The  Girls'  Seminarv  at 
Red  Wing,  Minn.,  and  ten  academies  at  various  places 
are  being  maintained  by  private  funds.  The  synod 
conducts  two  homes  for  the  aged  and  three  orphans' 
homes.  A  number  of  hospitals  are  being  supported 
by  individual  members  of  the  synod. 

It  has  foreign  missions  in  South  Africa,  China  and 
Alaska,  and  an  Indian  mis'iion  not  far  {r<m\  Witten- 
berg, Wis.     Home  missions  arc  being  maintained  in 


398  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,111,^ 

Utah,  New  York  and  Galveston  (immigrants),  and 
seamen's  missions  in  New  York,  Galveston  and  San 
Francisco.    Its  combined  property  is  worth  $1,000,000. 

3.     The  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 

After  withdrawing-  from  the  Synod  of  Northern 
Illinois,  the  Scandinavians,  in  1860,  organized  the 
Scandinavian  Augustana  Synod  in  a  little  Norwegian 
church  at  Jefferson  Prairie,  Wis.  Ten  years  after- 
wards this  synod  met  at  the  new  Swedish  church  of 
Andover,  111.  At  this  time  the  number  of  Norwegian 
ministers  had  greatly  increased,  and  they  decided 
to  organize  a  synod  oi  their  own.  To  this  the  Swedes 
gave  their  unanimous  consent.  The  Norwegian  pas- 
tors and  delegates  then  withdrew  to  the  old  church 
nearby  in  order  to  organize  the  new  synod  (§  19, 
5,  6).  Rev.  O.  J.  Hatlestad  was  elected  chairman 
and  Rev.  J.  M.  Eggen  secretary.  A  previously  ap- 
pointed committee  on  constitution  reported.  Mean- 
while only  two  paragraphs  were  adopted,  relating  to 
confession  and  name,  the  latter  being  "The  Norwegian 
Augustana  Synod."  The  rest  was  laid  aside  until  a 
conference  could  be  held  with  Rev.  B.  Gjeldaker,  of 
Silver  Lake,  and  Rev.  C.  L.  Clausen,  of  St.  Ansgar, 
Iowa,  who  had  left  the  Norwegian  Synod  on  account 
of  that  body's  attitude  on  the  slavery  question.  If 
these  men,  with  their  large  congregations,  would 
join  in  the  formation  of  the  new  synod,  it  would  be 
desirable  to  have  them  do  so,  and  it  was  decided 
that  they  should  have  a  chance  to  take  part  in  the 
discussion  and  adoption  of  the  constitution. 

The  conference  was  held  at  St.  Ansgar,  Iowa,  in 
July  of  the  same  year  (1870).     Finding  no  doctrinal 


i}    3I.IFI.'  THK    UNITED    I.UTH.    CHURCH.  399 

difticulties.  Rev.  Ilatlestad  read  tlic  repurl  from  An- 
dover.  and  Kev.  Clau.sen  submitted  a  new  draught 
for  the  constitution.  This  was  tinally  adopted,  the 
resolutions  from  Andover  rescinded,  and  a  new  so- 
ciety was  formed  called  "The  Conference  for  the  Nor- 
wegian Danish  Kvangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 
America."     Clausen   was  electeil  president. 

The  outlook  now  was  bright  for  a  time,  but,  sad 
to  say,  for  only  a  short  time.  Before  he  left.  Rev. 
Ilatlestad  handed  in  a  protest  against  the  repeal  of 
the  Andover  resolutions,  and  later  on  called  the  Nor- 
wegian Augustana  Synod  to  meet  at  Jetierson  Prairie, 
Wis.,  the  same  fall.  Here  the  resolution  adopted  at 
St.  Ansgar.  repealing  the  adoption  of  the  two  para- 
graphs of  Andover,  was  declared  null  and  void,  and 
the  meeting  resolved  to  complete  the  Andover  organi- 
zation by  adopting  the  rest  of  the  proposed  constitu- 
tion. Thus  the  year  1870  marks  both  a  union  and  a 
ilisunion.  The  majority  followed  Clausen  and  Gjel- 
daker,  wliile  the  minority  organized  the  Norwegian- 
Danish  Augustana  Synod.  Antagonism  between  these 
two  factions  was  strong  at  first,  but  later  on  a  bet- 
ter feeling  prevailed. 

The  Anti-Missourians  had  meanwhile  withdrawn 
from  the  X.pr\ve'.^ian  Synod.  They  cfifected  a  tem- 
porary organization,  hoping  for  an  eventual  union 
with  the  two  other  synods.  At  a  series  of  conferences 
the  conclusion  had  been  reached  that  there  were  no 
fundamental  difTerences  between  Hauge's  Synod, 
the  Conference  and  the  Augustana  Synod.  This 
caused  the  merging  of  the  three  currents  (Norwegian 
Conference,  Augustana  Synod,  and  Anti-Missouri 
Brotherhood)    and   the   forming  of  the   United   Nor- 


400  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,111,^ 

wegian  Lutheran  Church  of  America.  ''^  The  Con- 
ference had  379  congregations,  the  Brotherhood  231 
and  the  Augustana  Synod  41  congregations.  Without 
a  dissenting  vote  they  decided  for  union. 

Such  a  united  front  seemed  to  preckide  any  pos- 
sible rupture.  But  when  the  Augsburg  Seminary, 
hitherto  the  property  of  the  Conference,  was  to  be 
transferred  (according  to  agreement)  to  the  United 
Church,  the  trustees  refused  to  accede  to  such  a 
demand.  A  subsequent  trial,  appealed  from  court  to 
court,  resulted  in  the  synod  losing  the  building,  but 
retaining  the  endowment.  The  real  cause  of  the 
trouble  was  dissatisfaction  with  Profs.  Oftedal  and 
Sverdrup,  who  resigned  and  founded  the  Free  Church 
(1893).  Since  then  peace  has  reigned  in  the  borders 
of  the  United  Church. 

Its  theological  seminary  is  located  at  St.  Paul, 
and  has  the  following  faculty:  Rev.  F.  A.  Schmidt, 
D.  D.,  Professor  emeritus;  M.  O.  Bockman,  D.  D.  ; 
J.  N.  Kildahl,  D.  D. ;  E.  Kr.  Johnsen,  M.  A.;  C.  M. 
Weswig,  D.  D.;  M.  J.  Stolee,  B.  M.  The  college  is 
located  at  Northfield,  Minn.,  and  has  32  teachers  and 
500  scholars.  It  is  one  of  the  greatest  church  in- 
stitutions of  the  Middle  West.  A  Teachers'  Seminary 
is  located  at  Madison,  Minn.  Schools  for  higher  edu- 
cation are  located  as  follows :  Pleasant  View  Luther 
College,  Ottawa,  111. ;  Scandinavia  Academy,  Scandi- 
navia, Wis. ;  Waldorf  College,  Forest  City,  la. ;  Con- 
cordia College,  Morehead,  Minn.;  Spokane  College, 
Spokane,  Wash.;  Columbia  College,  Everett,  Wash.; 
Camrose  College,  Camrose,  Alberta,  Can.  The  last- 
named    institution    is    jointly    owned    with    Hauge's 

=•'  Tlie  Hauges  Synod  did  not   take  part. 


X,    jl.llf.  IMF     l.'Nlll-.U    LLlll.    LHL'kLH.  401 

Synud.  In  all  these  institutions  the  English  language 
prevails,  while  the  seminary  is  larcjcl}-  Norwegian. 
The  services  in  the  congregations  are  conducted 
mostly  in  the  Norwegian  language,  hut  l{ngli;>h  is 
growing  in  I'avor.  Some  congregations  divitle  their 
services  between  the  two  languages.  "Lutheraneren" 
is  the  Norwegian  organ,  "The  United  Lutheran"  the 
English  organ  oi  the  synod.  Tiie  Sunday-school 
papers  appear  in  both  languages. 

The  United  Synod  is  zealous  in  home  and  foreign 
mission  work.  It  has  foreign  missions  in  Mada- 
gascar and  in  the  district  of  Honan.  China,  and,  be- 
sides, supports  many  others. 

Among  the  charitable  institutions  may  be  men- 
tioned the  Deaconess'  Mothcrhouse  in  Chicago,  a  num- 
ber of  orphans'  homes  and  hospitals  in  the  Middle 
West,  orphans'  homes  at  Wittenberg,  Wis.,  Beloit, 
la.,  and  Lake  Park,  Minn.,  homes  for  the  aged  at 
NorthwDod.  N.  D.,  and  at  Wittenberg,  W^is.  The 
synod  has  a  pension  fund  for  its  pastors  and  pro- 
fessors.    Its  property  is  worth  $2.000,(XX). 

4.     The  Norwegian  Lutheran  Free  Church. 

This  organization  gathers  around  Augsburg  Sem- 
inary as  its  center.  The  seminary  was  opened  at 
Marshall,  Wis.,  1869,  and  is  the  oldest  theological 
school  among  the  Norwegians  in  America.  In  1872 
it  was  transferred  tt>  Minneapolis,  Minn.  Its  first 
president  was  Prof.  A.  Weenaas.  Prof.  Cieorge  Sver- 
drup  served  as  its  president  from  1876  to  his  death  in 
1907.  During  a  period  of  -J4  years  it  has  trained  367 
pastors.  F.ntrance  to  the  seminary  proper  is  pre- 
26 


40i  TflK    NORWEGIANS.  §    31,111,'* 

ceded  by  a  four  years'  college  course,  in  which  Greek 
is  the  principal  language,  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  the  institution,  requiring  that  the  Word  of 
God  shall  form  the  chief  subject  of  study. 

In  1890  the  Augsburg  Seminary  became  the  theo- 
logical school  of  the  United  Church,  but  in  1893  the 
annual  meeting  decided  to  withdraw  its  support,  un- 
less the  seminary  or  its  control  was  turned  over 
to  the  United  Church.  This  brought  the  resignation 
of  Profs.  Sverdrup  and  Oftedal  as  professors  in  the 
United  Church;  but  they  continued  their  work  in 
the  seminary.  In  this  they  were  supported  by  about 
50  ministers  and  60  congregations,  who  formed  a 
separate  organization.  The  Free  Church  differs  from 
other  Norwegian  Lutheran  synods  in  this  respect: 
it  has  no  constitution,  and  its  annual  meeting  is  not 
a  representative  body  of  delegates  elected  by  the 
congregations,  but  a  free  gathering  in  which  anyone 
who  agrees  to  the  Free  Church  principles  can  take 
part.  Christian  schools,  missions,  etc.,  are  supported 
by  the  congregations,  but  the  control  is  in  the  hands 
of  different  boards,  as  Boards  of  Trustees  for  Augs- 
burg Seminary,  of  Missions,  etc.  They  have  three 
schools  for  higher  education,  Augsburg  in  Minneap- 
olis, Minn.,  a  Ladies'  Seminary  in  Fargo,  N.  D.,  and 
an  Academy  at  Everett,  Wash.  In  the  line  of  mercy 
they  have  a  Deaconess'  Home  in  Minneapolis  and  two 
Orphans'  Homes  at  other  places.  Beside  supporting 
the  Jewish  and  Santhal  mission,  they  have  their  own 
field  in  Madagascar  and  have  of  late  decided  to  take 
up  mission  work  in  China. 


§    3'!^  PKOSPECTIVK    UNION.  403 

5.     The   Church   of   the   Lutheran   Brethren. 

This  body  was  orpfaiiizcd  in  1890.  with  Rtv.  K.  O. 
Lundcberg  a.'?  president.  He  is  an  earnest  Chris- 
tian, and  deplored  the  worldliness  of  the  churches. 
On  a  visit  to  Norway  he  fell  in  with  the  principle^ 
of  the  Free  Church  tiicre.  'i'hcy  advocated  the 
Donatistio  idea  of  pure  coni::rctjations.  Returninj^  i>) 
America,  he  beg-an  to  preach  and  practice  th.at  doc- 
trine, withdrew  from  the  United  Church  and  gathered 
the  "Brctliren"  into  a  separate  organization.  Being 
sincere  in  his  application  of  the  rule,  he  soon  found 
that  his  theory  was  only  an  ideal,  a  dream,  acknowl- 
edged that  he  had  erred  in  his  views  and  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Word  of  God.  and  returned  to  the  United 
Church.  Meanw'hile  Rev.  K.  M.  Broen  left  the  Free 
Church,  because  he  did  not  think  they  practiced  as 
they  preached,  and  joined  the  "Brethren."  The}"  have 
a  Bible  School  in  Wahpeton,  X.  D..  and  their  report 
for  1914  shows  11  elders  and  20  ci^ngregations,  with 
about  1.000  members.  They  are  very  much  interesteil 
in  foreign  missions,  and  have  a  fielrl  of  their  own  in 
Central  China. 

IV.     PROSPECTIVE  UNION  OF  THE  NORWEGIANS. 

The  United  Norwegian  S\nod.  having  completed 
its  org-anization,  arranged  for  a  number  of  conferences 
with  the  representatives  of  the  Norwegian  Synod. 
This  movement  received  a  new  impetus  when 
Hauge's  Synod  (1905),  after  some  discussion,  reached 
an  agreement  with  other  synods  concerning  absolu- 
tion and  the  work  of  la}nien.  In  subsequent  lontro- 
ver>ir^  the  dextrine?  of  election  and  conversion  (1907) 


404  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §        3I,IV 

and  predestination  (1911)  came  up  for  consideration. 
While  the  last  dogma  presented  some  difiiculties  and 
prevented  a  final  agreement  at  the  conferences  of 
1908,  1909  and  1910  (five  conferences),  the  opposing 
parties  approached  common  ground.  With  admirable 
patience  —  a  splendid  example  for  all  Lutherans  — 
the  pursuit  of  union  was  continued  with  the  as- 
sistance of  the  laity.  At  the  conference  at  Madison, 
Wis.  (Feb.  22,  1912),  a  number  of  conciliatory  reso- 
lutions were  adopted.  They  brightened  the  prospects 
for  an  ultimate  union,  which  now  seems  all  but  as- 
sured, in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference. We  reprint  the  Madison  Theses  because  of 
their  important  character: 

Agreement. 

1.  The  Synod  and  United  Church  Committees  on  Union 
acknowledge  unanimously  and  without  reservation  the  doc- 
trine of  Predestination  which  is  stated  in  the  Eleventh 
Article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  (the  so-called  "first  form 
of  the  doctrine")  and  in  Pontoppidan's  Explanation  ("Sand- 
hed  til  Gudfrygtighed"),  Question  548  (the  so-called  "sec- 
ond form  of  the  doctrine")- 

2.  Whereas  the  conferring  Church  bodies  acknowledge 
that  Art.  XI  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  presents  the  pure 
and  correct  doctrine  of  God's  Word  and  the  Lutheran 
Church  regarding  the  Election  of  the  children  of  God  to 
salvation,  it  is  deemed  unnecessary  to  Church  union  to  con- 
struct new  and  more  extensive  theses  concerning  this 
article  of  faith. 

3,  But  since,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Election,  it  is 
well  known  that  two  forms  of  the  doctrine  have  been  used, 
both  of  which  have  been  recognized  as  correct  in  the  ortho- 
dox Lutheran  Church,  viz.,  that  some,  make  the  doctrine  of 
Election  to  comprise  the  entire  salvation  of  the  elect  from 
the    calling   to    the    glorification,  —  cf.    "Thorough    Explana- 


§    ^l,[\  I'KOSI'LCTIVE    UNION.  405 

tion,"  Article  XI.,  10-12  —  and  teach  an  Election  "to  salva- 
tion through  sanctification  by  the  Spirit  and  faith  in  the 
truth;"  while  others  (like  PontoppidaiO,  in  consonance  with 
John  Gerhard,  Scriver,  and  other  acknowledged  doctrinal 
fathers,  define  Election  chictly  as  the  decree  of  final  glori- 
fication, with  the  Spirit's  work  of  faith  and  perseverance  as 
its  necessary  postulate,  and  teach  that  "God  has  ordained 
to  eternal  life  all  those  who  from  eternity  He  foresaw 
would  accept  the  proffered  grace,  believe  in  Christ,  and  re- 
main steadfast  in  this  faith  unto  the  end;"  and  since  neither 
of  those  two  forms  of  doctrine  contradicts  any  doctrine 
revealed  in  the  Word  of  God,  but  lets  the  order  of  salva- 
tion, as  otherwise  presented  in  God's  Word  and  the  Con- 
fession of  the  Church,  remain  entirely  intact  and  fully 
acknowledged,  we  find  that  this  fact  ought  not  be  divisive 
"')f  Church  unity,  nor  ought  it  disrupt  that  unity  of  spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace  which  God  wills  should  obtain  between  us. 

4.  Since,  however,  during  the  doctrinal  controversy 
among  us,  words  and  expressions  have  been  used  —  rightly 
or  wrongly  attributed  to  one  party  or  the  other  —  which 
seemed  to  the  other  side  a  denial  of  the  Confession  of  the 
Church,  or  to  lead  to  such  denial,  we  have  agreed  to  reject 
all  erroneous  doctrines  which  seek  to  explain  away  the 
mysterj'  of  Election  (Formula  of  Concord,  Art.  XI,  39-44) 
cither  in  a  synergistic  manner  or  in  a  Calvinizing  way;  in 
other  words,  we  reject  every  doctrine  which  either,  on  the 
one  hand,  would  rob  God  of  His  honor  as  the  only  Savior, 
or,  on  the  other,  would  weaken  man's  feeling  of  responsi- 
bility for  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  God's  grace. 

5.  On  the  other  hand,  we  reject: 

a)  The  doctrine  that  God's  mercy  and  the  most  holy 
merits  of  Christ  are  not  the  sole  reason  for  our  election, 
but  that  there  is  also  in  ourselves  a  reason  for  such  election, 
for  the  sake  of  which  God  has  ordained  us  to  eternal  life. 

b)  The  doctrine  that  in  Election  God  has  been  deter- 
mined by,  or  has  taken  cognizance  of,  or  has  been  actuated 
by,  man's  good  relation,  or  by  anything  which  man  may  do 
or  not  do,  "as  of  himself  or  by  his  own  natural  pov.ers." 


4o6  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    3 1, IV 

c)  The  doctrine  that  the  faith  in  Christ  which  is  indis- 
solubly  connected  with  Election,  is  wholly  or  in  part  a 
product  of,  or  dependent  upon,  man's  own  choosing,  power 
or  ability. 

d)  Or  that  this  faith  is  the  result  of  a  power  and 
ability  imparted  to  man  by  the  call  of  grace  and  therefore 
now  dwelling  in,  and  belonging  to,  the  unregenerate  man,  to 
himself  determine  to  accept  God's  grace. 

6.     On  the  other  hand,  we  reject: 

a)  The  doctrine  that  in  Election  God  acts  arbitrarily 
and  without  motive,  and  picks  out  and  counts  a  certain 
arbitrary  number  of  indiscriminate  individuals,  and  ordains 
these  to  conversion  and  salvation,  while  passing  by  all  the 
others. 

b)  The  doctrine  that  there  are  two  different  kinds  of 
will  to  salvation  in  God,  one  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  in 
the  general  order  of  salvation,  and  another,  differing  from 
this,  and  unknown  to  us,  which  relates  only  to  the  elect  and 
imparts  a  deeper  love,  a  more  effective  call  from  God  and 
a  larger  measure  of  grace  than  are  brought  to  him  who 
remains  in  unbelief  and  condemnation. 

c)  The  doctrine  that  when  the  opposition,  which  God 
in  conversion  removes  from  those  whom  He  saves,  is  not 
taken  away  in  others  who  finally  are  lost,  this  different 
result  finds  its  reason  in  God  and  in  a  differing  will  of 
salvation  in  His  act  of  election. 

d)  The  doctrine  that  a  believer  can  and  must  have  an 
absolute  assurance  of  his  election  and  salvation,  instead  of 
an  assurance  of  faith,  built  upon  the  promise  of  God,  and 
joined  with  fear  and  trembling  and  the  possibility  of  falling 
from  grace,  which,  however,  by  the  mercy  of  God  he  be- 
lieves will  not  become  a  reality  to  him. 

e)  In  a  summary,  all  views  and  doctrines  regarding 
Election  which  directly  or  indirectly  come  into  conflict  with 
the  order  of  salvation  and  do  not  give  to  all  a  full  and 
therefore  equally  great  opportunity  to  salvation,  or  which 
in  any  manner  would  invalidate  that  Word  of  God  which 
declares  that  "God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come 
unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth"  —  in  which  gracious  and 
merciful  will  of  God  all  election  to  eternal  life  has  its  origrtn. 


§    31  UlOCKAr-HlCAL    NOTES.  4©/ 

Oil  the  basis  oi  the  above  Agreement  the  Commit- 
tees on  Union  declared  that  the  essential  unity  con- 
cerning these  doctrines  which  was  attained  was  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  Church  union. 

The  two  bodies  will  take  these  resolutions  under 
consideration  at  their  regular  conventions.  We  do 
not  presume  that  an  a.i^reement  will  be  reached  with- 
out some  difficulty  ;  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
synods,  recos^nizing'  their  essential  doctrinal  unity,  will 
not  rest  contented  until  the  Norwegians  of  this  coun- 
try are  rallied  around  a  common  standard,  and  thus 
will  be  thoroughly  organized  to  accomplish  the  great 
mission  assigned  to  them  by  the  living  God. 

BiographiceJ  Notes.  * 

Rev.  Elling  Eielsen  was  born  in  \'os,  Norway,  September 
19,  1804.  His  parents  belonged  to  the  friends  of  Hauge,  and 
so  from  childhood  Eielsen  was  under  Christian  influence, 
l)ut  did  not  find  peace  with  God  until  he  was  about  twenty- 
t";ve  years  of  age.  From  that  time  he  felt  it  his  duty  to 
preach  to  others,  admonishing  them  to  repent  of  their  sins 
and  turn  to  God  for  pardon.  Having  traveled  as  a  lay 
preacher  oser  a  large  part  of  Xorvvay  and  part  of  Denmark, 
he  landed  in  America  in  1839.  He  preached  his  first  sermon 
in  Chicago.  Then  he  went  from  place  to  place  preaching  to 
his  widely  scattered  countrymen.  In  1843  he  was  ordained 
(or  licensed),  and  in  1864  he  and  his  friends  organized 
Hauge's  Synod.  Eielsen  was  a  strong  character,  and  was 
very  earnest  in  his  work.  He  also  loved  the  Lutheran 
Church  as  he  knew  it  through  his  beloved  Pontoppidan, 
whose  explanation  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism  he  went  all 
the  way  to  \ew  York  —  mostly  on  foot  —  to  get  printed; 
but  he  came  at  times  in  collision  with  the  clergy  in  Norway, 


•These,    with    the    exception    of    the    last    two,    have    been    written 
by    the    Rev.    J.    A.    Bergh. 


408  THE    NORWEc^IANS.  §    3 1 

and  had  a  great  distaste  for  everything  that  had,  in  his 
opinion,  a  taint  of  state-churchism,  much  of  the  liturgy 
included.     He  died  at  his  home  in  Chicago  in  1883. 

Rev.  Claus  Lauriz  Clausen  was  born  on  the  island  of 
Aeroe,  Denmark,  November  3,  1820.  Although  a  Dane  by 
birth,  the  Norwegians  are  in.iined  to  count  him  one  of  their 
own,  as  he  spent  nearly  all  his  life  among  them.  Like  his 
contemporary,  Eielsen,  he  came  from  the  pietistic  circles  in 
Norway  and  Denmark.  He  had  planned  to  go  with  Schroe- 
der  as  a  missionary  to  Africa,  but  on  receiving  an  earnest 
appeal  from  Norwegian  pioneers  in  the  wilderness  of  Wis- 
consin, he  finally  decided  to  come  to  America.  He  arrived 
at  Muskego,  Wis.,  in  August,  1843,  accepted  a  call  as  pastor 
to  the  Muskego  church  September  13th,  and  was  ordained 
by  a  German  minister  October  18th  of  the  same  year.  Being 
better  educated  and  having  a  broader  view  than  Eielsen, 
Clausen  saw  not  only  the  importance  of  the  salvation  of 
the  individual,  but  also  the  necessity  of  the  establishment 
of  a  Christian  church.  As  far  as  possible,  he  therefore 
gathered  Norwegian  Lutherans  into  organized  congrega- 
tions, and  worked  most  of  his  time  as  a  settled  pastor. 
Preaching  the  doctrine  and  using  the  rites  of  the  Church 
of  Denmark  and  Norway,  he  transplanted  the  church  of  the 
Fatherland  as  far  as  possible  to  the  new  soil  of  America. 
He  has  the  honor  of  laying  the  first  stone  in  the  foundation 
of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  of  America.  Clausen 
was  not  rugged  in  health,  yet  for  many  years  he  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  development  of  the  church.  It  was 
in  his  church  at  Luther  Valley,  Rock  County,  Wis.,  that 
pastors  and  delegates  met  in  1851  to  organize  a  synod;  it 
was  also  here  that  the  organization  of  the  Norwegian 
Synod  was  completed  in  1853,  Clausen  being  elected  Super- 
intendent in  1851  and  Vice  President  in  1853.  He  was  also 
the  first  president  of  the  "Konferents"  formed  in  his  church 
at  St.  Ansgar,  Iowa,  in  1870.  He  was  too  feeble  to  attend 
the  meeting  at  Minneapolis,  when  the  United  Church  was 
organized,  but  sent  his  greeting.  He  died  tv,-o  3^ears  later, 
1892. 


§    3'  inOcJKAPlIUAL    NOTliS.  4O9 

Rev.  Peder  Andreas  Rasmuasen  was  l)orn  in  Stavangcr, 
Xorway,  January  9,  ISi').  lii-  caiuc  to  America  in  1850.  At 
first  he  taught  parochial  school,  but  in  1853  he  received  a 
call  from  the  Lisbon  Church,  Fox  Hill,  III.,  to  become  their 
pastor.  To  fit  himself  better  for  the  work,  he  attended  the 
Ft.  Wayne  Seminary  for  one  year,  and  was  ordained  in  1854. 
Rasmusscn  was  one  of  the  most  impressive  speakers  of  the 
Norwegian  Lutlieran  Church  in  America  in  the  last  century, 
and  took  an  active  part  in  its  work  until  a  short  time  be- 
fore his  death.  Whatever  he  did  was  done  with  his  whole 
heart.  He  took  a  leading  part  in  the  controversy  between 
Eielscn's  friends  and  the  Norwegian  Synod,  between  the 
Synod  and  the  Konfercnts  and  between  the  Missourians 
and  the  .Anti-Missourians.  But  the  greatest  service  he  ren- 
dered his  cliurch  was  the  prominent  part  he  took  in  the 
movement  that  resulted  in  the  union  of  the  Konferents, 
the  .\ugustana  Synod  and  the  Anti-Missourian  Brother- 
hood in  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church  of  America.  In 
this  important  work  Rasmussen  was  in  the  front  rank,  and 
probably  exerted  a  greater  influence  than  any  other  man. 
Beside  being  an  eloquent  speaker,  he  wielded  a  fluent  pen. 
For  fifteen  years  he  edited  his  own  paper,  wrote  several 
pamphlets,  tran.^lated  and  published  books  like  Arndt's 
"True  Christianity."  He  was  a  warm  hearted  friend  of  for- 
eign missions,  his  congregation  sending  more  money  to  the 
Mission  Society  of  Norway  than  any  other.  He  died  in  1898, 
leaving  four  sons  in  active  service  as  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel in  the  United  Church. 

Rev.  Herman  Amber  Preua  was  born  in  Christiansand, 
Norwaj',  June  16.  ISi^.  He  graduated  from  the  tlieological 
department  of  the  University  of  Christiania,  and  was  or- 
dained on  a  call  from  Spring  Prairie,  Columbia  County, 
Wis.  He  came  to  America  in  1851.  In  Norway  the  ration- 
alism of  tlie  first  part  of  the  last  century  was  followed  by 
A  strict  orthodo.vy.  This  wave  reached  its  zenith,  and 
wielded  its  greatest  influence  in  the  forties.  .At  this  tiinr 
young  Prcus  studied  theology  at  the  University,  and  took 
tip  his  work  in  .America  fully  imbued  with  the  orthodox 
fiirit    r>t    fhr    Fni  h  rr  In  11  d.      On    hi^    avriv.il    lirrr    hf    detected 


4IO 


THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    3I 


Gruntvigianism  in  an  article  of  faith  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Norwegian  Synod,  just  organized,  and  showed  his 
ability  by  getting  the  organization  dissolved  and  a  new  one 
reorganized  with  a  truly  orthodox  creed.  He  was  one  of  the 
six  ministers  who  formed  the  Norwegian  Synod  in  1853,  and 
was  its  president  from  1862  until  his  death  in  1894.  He  was 
a  born  leader.  His  noble  and  symmetrical  physique,  his  fine 
abilities  and  various  acquisitions  always  commanded  atten- 
tion and  respect.  In  disposition  he  combined  gentleness 
with  resoluteness  and  inflexibility.  With  Rev.  Preus  at  the 
helm  there  was  no  danger  that  the  Synod  should  veer 
either  to  the  right  or  the  left.  He  had  its  destination 
clearly  in  view  and  its  course  well  under  control.  With  his 
strong  convictions,  he  often  clashed  with  people  of  other 
persuasions.  He  strongly  presented  his  views  both  on  the 
f^oor  of  conventions  and  in  the  press.  For  several  years  he 
was  associated  editor  of  the  synod's  official  paper.  His 
sermons  lacked  somewhat  in  the  emotional  feature,  but 
were  always  clear  and  instructive. 

Rev.  Ulrik  Wilhelm  Koren,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Bergen, 
Norway,  December  22,  1826,  graduated  from  the  University 
of  Christiania  in  1852,  and  came  to  America  in  1853.  He 
accepted  a  call  from  Washington  Prairie,  near  Decorah, 
Iowa,  and  was  for  several  years  the  only  Norwegian  min- 
ister west  of  the  Mississippi  River.  He  joined  the  Norwe- 
gian Synod,  which  was  organized  shortly  before  his  arrival 
and  took  an  active  part  in  its  work.  It  was  through  his  in- 
fluence that  Luther  College  was  located  at  Decorah,  and  as 
the  years  went  by  he  became  more  and  more  a  power  in 
the  Synod  until  finally,  by  common  consent,  he  was  the 
acknowledged  leader.  From  1887,  when  the  Anti-Missou- 
rians  withdrew,  he  occupied  nearly  the  same  position  in 
the  Norwegian  Synod  as  Walther  held  in  the  German  Synod 
of  Missouri.  His  word  was  law.  When  Preus  died,  1894,  the 
presidency  fell  upon  his  shoulders.  Koren  had  all  the 
qualifications  of  a  leader.  He  was  a  clear  thinker,  an  elo- 
quent speaker,  a  strong  debater,  a  keen  observer  and  a  fine 
diplomat.  He  knew  when  to  praise  and  when  to  strike. 
Under    his    able    leadership    the    Missourians    in    the    Synod 


§    3'  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  4II 

grew  from  a  minority  to  a  two-thirds  majority.  He  lias 
also  the  distinction  of  being  the  only  Norwegian  pastor 
thus  far  who  has  served  one  congregation  for  more  than 
half  a  century.     He  died  in  1910. 

Rev.  Gjermund  Hoyme  was  born  in  Waldris,  Norway, 
October  8,  1848,  and  came  to  America  with  his  parents  in 
1851.  They  settled  first  at  Port  Washington,  Wis.,  but  moved, 
lour  years  later,  to  Springville,  Iowa.  On  this  journey  of 
about  300  miles  the  future  "bishop"  had  to  walk  on  his  bare 
feet,  driving  a  cow,  the  only  property  his  parents  had  be- 
sides a  yoke  of  oxen  and  a  wagon.  His  father  soon  died, 
and  young  Hoyme  had  to  work  his  way  through  school. 
He  studied  at  the  Wisconsin  University,  and  graduated 
from  Augsburg  Seminary  in  the  class  of  1873.  At  first  he 
supplied  a  pulpit  in  Duluth,  Minn.,  but  went  later  to  Me- 
nomonie  and  Eau  Claire,  Wis.  In  the  United  Church 
Hoyme  was  sometimes  called  "our  bishop,"  and  there  is 
probably  no  man  who  has  won  greater  esteem  among  the 
Norwegian  Lutherans  in  this  country.  His  noble  character, 
pleasant  appearance,  warm  heart,  and  great  eloquence  won 
for  him  the  admiration  of  the  people.  As  moderator  he 
proved  to  be  eminently  fair  in  his  decisions  on  any  question 
that  came  up  for  adjustment.  He  was  for  years  an  active 
member  of  the  Konferents,  and  threw  all  the  weight  of  his 
influence  in  favor  of  a  union  of  this  body  with  the  Augus- 
tana  Synod  (Norwegian)  and  Anti-Missourians.  In  1890 
this  was  accomplished,  and  Hoyme  was  unanimously  elected 
President  of  the  United  Church,  a  position  he  held  until  his 
death,  which  occurred  in  1902. 

Prof.  Georgr  Sverdrup  was  born  December  16.  1848,  in 
Balestrand,  Norway,  graduated  from  Christiania  in  1871, 
studied  in  Germany  and  France,  and  came  to  America  in 
1874,  having  been  called  by  the  Konferents  to  a  chair  in  the 
faculty  of  Augsburg  Seminary.  Sverdrup  belonged  to  a 
talented  family.  His  grandfather  was  a  prominent  member 
of  the  Eidsvold  Assembly,  which  gave  Norway  its  declara- 
tion of  independence  in  1814.  His  father  was  a  well  known 
clergyman,  and  his  uncle  for  years  the  leading  statesman 
of  Norway,  having  the  distinction  of  being  called  the  "un- 


412  THE    NORWEGIANS.  §    3J 

crowned  king."  One  brother  died  as  bishop,  and  another  is 
a  professor  of  theology  in  Christiania.  The  subject  of  our 
sketch  was  probably  among  the  most  gifted.  He  was  a  very 
able  teacher,  and  always  attracted  close  attention,  when  he 
took  the  floor  in  any  meeting.  He  had  a  pleasant  appear- 
ance, and  was  democratic  in  his  views,  but,  like  every  man 
born  to  rule,  he  had  a  strong  will  before  which  everything 
had  either  to  bend  or  break.  He  was  one  of  those  forceful 
personalities  who  have  warm  supporters,  but  also  many 
opponents.  He  could  not  adjust  himself  to  the  old  ways  of 
the  Konferents,  and  events  in  the  United  Church  did  not 
turn  out  to  his  liking.  He  tendered  his  resignation  twice, 
first  to  the  Konferents,  when  he  was  re-elected,  and  later 
to  the  United  Church,  which  accepted  it.  He  continued, 
however,  as  professor  at  Augsburg  Seminary,  his  friends 
being  in  the  majority  on  the  board  of  trustees,  and  they 
started  the  Free  Church  movement  (1893).  Sverdrup  was  a 
hard  worker,  and  put  the  Church  under  great  obligation  by 
giving  it  the  full  benefit  of  his  eminent  talent  for  organiza- 
tion at  the  period  of  the  amalgamation  of  the  Konferents, 
the  Augustana  Synod  and  the  Anti-Missourians  into  the 
United  Church.    He  died  at  his  home  in  Minneapolis  in  1907. 

Prof.  Peter  Lauritz  Larsen,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  Chris- 
liansand,  Norway,  August  10,  1833.  He  graduated  from 
the  University  at  Christiania  in  1855,  and  came  to  Amer- 
ica in  1857.  At  first  he  served  as  a  pastor,  but  in  1859  he 
was  elected  as  the  Norwegian  professor  of  the  theological 
faculty  at  Concordia  Seminary,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  When  the 
Synod,  in  1861,  discontinued  its  connection  with  the  St. 
Louis  institution  and  established  a  school  of  its  own,  Larsen 
was  elected  President,  a  position  he  held  until  1902.  For 
many  years  he  was  on  the  editorial  staflf  of  "Evangelisk 
Luthersk  Kirketidende,"  the  official  paper  of  the  synod, 
and  from  1902  to  1912  editor-in-chief.  He  was  a  noble  char- 
acter, an  ideal  college  president  and  a  hard  worker.  His 
labor  and  life  are  woven  into  the  history  of  the  Norwegian 
Synod  as  few  others  are.     He  died  in  1914. 

Prof.  Friedrich  August  Schmidt,  D.  D.,  born  at  Leuten- 
berg,   Germany,   January   3,    1837,   came   to   America    in    his 


^    31  BIOGRAPHICAL    NOTES.  4I3 

youth  and  studied  at  the  Luiicoidia  Sciuinary  at  Si.  Luuis, 
Mo.  He  served  congregations  at  Eden,  N.  V.  (1859J,  at 
Baltiiuore,  Md.  0^^9-61),  and  was  professor  at  the  Norwe- 
gian Luther  College  at  Decorah,  la.  (1861-72).  From  1872  to 
1S76  he  was  a  member  of  the  faculty  of  the  Concordia  Sem- 
inary, St.  Louis ;  1876-86  of  the  Norwegian  Seminary  at 
Madison,  Wis.;  1886-90  of  the  Norwegian  Seminary  at 
Northrield,  Minn.  Since  1890  he  has  been  connected  with 
the  seminary  of  the  United  Norwegian  Church  at  Minne- 
apolis, Minn.  He  edited  "The  Lutheran  Watchman"  (1865- 
66),  "Altes  und  Neues"  (1880-85),  "Lutherske  Vidnesbred" 
(1882-88),  and  has  written  a  number  of  articles  on  predes- 
tination, having  been  closely  connected  with  the  contro- 
versy on  this  doctrine  in  ilie  Missouri  and  Norwegian 
Synods. 

Prof.  Hans  Gerhard  Stub,  D.  D.,  born  at  Muskego,  Wis  , 
February  23,  1849,  was  trained  in  the  schools  of  the  Missouri 
Synod,  and  later  attended  tlie  University  ui  Leip::ig.  Hav- 
ing been  ordained  in  1872,  he  served  a  congregation  at  Min- 
neapolis, Minn.  (1872-78),  and  then  became  professor  at 
Luther  Seminary,  Madison,  Wis.  (1878-88),  continuing  in 
this  position  after  the  school  was  transferred  to  Robbins- 
dale,  near  Minneapolis  (1888-1900).  Since  1910  he  has  been 
president  of  the  Norwegian  Synod,  and  has  resided  at  St. 
Paul,  Minn.  In  the  present  controversy  concerning  predes- 
tination he  takes  a  leading  part  as  a  representative  of  the 
Norwegian  Synod,  which  formerly  belonged  to  Missouri. 


§  32.     Danish   Lutherans   in  America.  * 

1.  Danish  emigration  t(i  America  is,  in  one  sen.Ne, 
very  old.  There  were  quite  a  number  of  Danes 
among  the  Dutcli  of  New  Netherland,  and  some  of 
them  were  members  of  the  Dutch  Lutheran  congre- 
gations of  New  Amsterdam,  Manhattan,  etc.  There 
were  also  some  Danes  among  the  Germans  in  Penn- 


•  Contributed   by    the    Rev.    Prof.     P.    S.    Vi(f. 


414  THE    DANISH    LUTHERANS.  §    32 

sylvania  and  members  of  the  Lutheran  congregations 
there.  Among  the  older  German  Lutheran  pastors 
of  Pennsylvania,  Peter  Brunn^holtz  and  J.  D.  Leps 
were  Danes.  Quite  a  number  of  Danes  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Moravian  settlements  in  Pennsylvania, 
and  some  of  their  most  gifted  preachers  were  Danes, 
and  had  been  Lutheran  pastors  in  Denmark,  among 
them,  Otto  C.  Krogstrup,  A.  C.  Langgaard,  Jakob 
Friis,  Jorgen  Solle  and  others. 

Danish  emigration  to  the  United  States,  in  the 
real  sense  of  the  word,  is,  however,  a  feature  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Before  1840  it  consisted  mostly 
of  mechanics,  sailors,  hunters,  and  a  few  physicians, 
and  was  restricted  mostly  to  the  Atlantic  States.  Be- 
tween the  years  1840  and  1850  emigration  from  the 
rural  districts  of  Denmark  began  and  has  continued 
to  this  day,  so  that  the  Danes  in  America  now  num- 
ber about  half  a  million,  about  one-seventh  of  all 
the  Danes  in  the  world. 

The  Danes  in  the  United  States  are  scattered,  and 
in  more  than  one  sense  of  the  term.  As  a  rule,  they 
are  not  found  in  great  numbers  in  any  one  place,  with 
the  exception  of  the  great  cities  of  New  York,  Chi- 
cago, Minneapolis,  Omaha,  Racine,  Wis.,  and  San 
Francisco,  Cal.  The  larger  rural  settlements  of  Danes 
in  the  United  States  are  found  in  Michigan,  Illinois, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Nebraska,  and  the  Da- 
kotas.  There  are  Danes  in  all  the  states  of  the  Union 
and  in  most  of  the  large  cities. 

In  regard  to  religious  afiBliations  the  Danes  are, 
perhaps,  even  more  scattered.  A  great  many  of  the 
Danish  emigrants  between  1850  and  1870  came  to 
America  as  Mormons,  and  their  descendants  are  now 


§    3-  OAMSn     KMIf. RATION.  4I5 

members  of  that  body.  Not  a  few  who  came  here, 
caring  for  no  rehgion,  became  Methodists  and  Bap- 
tists, Advcntists,  etc.  It  would  be  difficuh  to  find 
a  rehgious  sect  in  America,  among  whose  members 
there  arc  not  some  Danes.  But  very  few  are  Roman 
Cathohcs,  and  most  of  those  who  are  have  become  so 
through  marriage. 

Not  a  few  of  the  older  Danish  emigrants  who 
would  not  leave  the  Lutheran  Church,  because  mem- 
bers of  the  Norwegian  and  Swedish  Lutheran  churches 
in  Illinois,  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota.  But  the  great 
majority  of  Danes  who  came  to  America  in  earlier 
days  wore  members  of  no  churcli.  and  their  de- 
scendants today  belong  to  the  great  unbaptizcd  mul- 
titudes of  the  country. 

2.  Lutheran  mission  work  am^ong  the  Danes  in  tli<j 
L'nited  States  lags  far  behind  that  carried  on  among 
the  Swedes  and  Norwegians.  The  first  Lutheran 
pastor  among  the  Norwegians  in  the  United  States 
was  a  young  Danish  lay  preacher.  Claus  L.  Clausen 
(1820-1892),  who  came  to  America  in  1843  and  wa- 
ordained  to  the  Lutheran  ministry  October  18,  1843. 
near  Mihvaukee.  Wis.,  by  the  Herman  pastor,  L.  F.  R. 
Krause,  from  Silesia.  Although  Clausen's  work  was 
among  the  Norwegians  in  Iowa,  Wisconsin  and  Min- 
nesota, he  did  for  his  own  countrymen  wlmt  he 
could.  He  organized  several  Danish  congregations, 
and  through  letters  and  visits  to  Denmark  s]>oko  of 
the  necessity  of  sending  missionaries  to  the  religiously 
destitute  Danes  in  America.  Mainly  through  Clau- 
sen's influence  a  "committee  for  the  furthering  of 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  among  Danes  in 
.America"  was  formed   in  Denmark  in   1869.  a  volun- 


4t6  the    DAMSH    LUTHERANS.  §    32 

tary  association  of  four  clergymen  and  one  layman. 
In  1871  this  committee  sent  three  men  to  America, 

Pastor  A.  C.  L.  Grove-Rasmussen,  of  Gram  in  Schles- 
wig  —  to  survey  tlie  field  of  work  and  report  to  the 
committee  on  his  return  —  and  two  laymen,  Mr.  A. 
S.  Nielsen,  who  had  worked  as  a  lay  preacher  in 
Denmark  for  several  years,  and  Mr.  Rasmus  Ander- 
sen, who  had  studied  for  the  foreign  mission  field. 
In  the  same  year,  1871,  two  Danish  missionaries 
among  the  heathen,  Rev.  N.  Thomsen  from  India, 
and  A.  Dan  from  Africa,  came  to  America  as  pastors 
for  Danish  congregations  in  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  and 
Racine,  Wis.,  respectively.  A.  vS.  Nielsen  was  called 
by  a  Danish  congregation  at  Cedar  P^alls,  Iowa,  and 
vras  ordained  by  C.  L.  Clausen,  November  17,  1871, 
at  St.  Ansgar,  Iowa.  R.  Anderson  was  ordained  in 
18."2  by  A.  S.  Nielsen  as  pastor  of  a  Danish  congre- 
gation at  Waupaca,  Wis. 

3.     The  First  Organization. 

Clausen,  when  he  ordained  Nielsen,  v^-as  president 
of  the  Norwegian  Danish  Conference  (founded  in 
1870),  and  he  naturally  expected  that  the  Danish 
])astors  would  unite  with  that  organization.  That 
l"iope,  however,  was  not  realized.  Pastor  Grove- 
Rasmussen,  in  his  report  to  the  committee  in  Den- 
mark on  his  return  from  America,  had  warned  against 
uiiion  with  the  conference,  it  being,  in  his  opinion, 
too  orthodox.  The  truth  is  that  Grove-Rasmussen, 
ns  well  as  A.  S.  Nielsen  and  most  of  the  members 
of  the  committee  in  Denmark,  were  followers  of 
N.  F.  S.  Grundtvig,  and  did  not  consider  the  Holy 
Scripture    as    the    formal   principle   of   the    Christian 


^  3 J  rm:  first  organization.  417 

Cliurch,  but  set  the  Apostles'  Creed  above  it  —  that, 
and  not  Scripture,  being  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  connected,  as  it 
was  and  always  has  been,  with  baptism,  the  door 
into  the  Christian  Church.  Of  the  fi)ur  Danish  pas- 
t'jrs  in  the  United  States  in  1872,  three  united  with 
some  laynuii  umKr  the  name.  "The  Missionary  Asso- 
ciation of  the  Church"  (Kirkolii;-  Mi;>^ion.sf*,)renin^^). 
:\nd  started  a  weekly  church  paper.  "Kirkelig  Samler," 
Rev.  A.  Dan,  editor,  .\fter wards,  in  1S78.  the  name 
of  the  association  was  changed  to  "The  Danish  Kvan- 
qfclical  Lutheran  Church  of  America,"  and  a  consti- 
tution was  adopted  on  drundtvigfian  lines  —  empha- 
sizing the  fact  that  said  church  was  the  true  daughter 
of  the  Danish  National  Church.  The  church  had 
no  Theological  Seminary  :  its  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry had  to  come  from  Denmark,  and  were  educated 
mostly  under  Grundtvigian  influence. 

Still  some  of  the  pastors  were  not  Grundtvii^ians, 
l)tU  emj)lia>i/e(l  tlic-  Hu!}  Scripture  as  the  formal 
principle  of  the  church,  and  worked  in  accordance 
therewith  in  their  congregations.  Derogatory  ex- 
pressions about  Holy  Scripture  were  published  in  the 
church  papers,  and  finally  a  heated  controversy  took 
place,  lasting  for  several  years,  between  the  ultra 
t  irundtvigians  and  the  orthodox  Lutherans.  In  1894 
a  rupture  occurred  in  the  church,  the  Grundtvigians 
liaving  adopted  a  new  constitution  ajid  decreeing  that 
those  who  did  not  subscribe  to  it  before  three  months 
liad  elapsed  wrmld  be  con?i<lcred  non-member-^  of  the 
church.  Twent}-two  ministers  and  their  congrega- 
tions failed  to  >^nb.<cribc  to  said  constitution. 


4l8  THE   DANISH    LUTHERANS.  §    32 

4.     The  Danish   Evangelical  Lutheran   Church   in   North 
America. 

In  the  fall  of  1894  at  Elk  Horn,  Iowa,  the  above 
named  non-subscribing  ministers,  with  delegates  from 
some  of  their  congregations,  met  and  organized 
themselves  under  the  name,  "The  Danish  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  of  North  America,"  electing  Rev. 
P.  L.  C.  Hansen,  Cedar  Falls,  la.,  President,  Rev. 
N.  L.  J.  Soholm,  Waupasa,  Wis.,  Treasurer,  Rev.  H.  J. 
Dahlstrom,  Secretary.  The  new  body  published  a 
weekly  church  paper,  "The  Missionary  Messenger;" 
editors :  Rev.  N.  P.  Simonsen  and  Rev.  PI.  P.  Jensen. 
The  Danish  high  school  at  Elk  Horn,  la.  (founded 
1878),  was  purchased  and  used  for  a  theological  sem- 
inary. Rev.  P.  S.  Vig  was  elected  professor.  The 
weekly  paper,  "Danskeren,"  published  by  Rev.  J.  N. 
Jersild  at  Neenah,  Wis.,  was  also  the  organ  of  "The 
North  Church,"  the  common  name  of  the  new  body. 

5.     The    Danish    Evangelical    Lutheran    Church    Association 
of  America  of  1884. 

This  church  body  consisted  of  Danish  pastors  who 
had  been  educated  at  Augsburg  Seminary,  Minneap- 
olis, Minn.,  and  served  Danish  congregations  in  the 
Norwegian  Danish  conference.  In  1884  they,  with 
the  consent  of  the  conference,  organized  themselves 
under  the  above  name  and  started  a  tlieological  sem- 
inary at  Blair,  Neb.,  "Trinity  Seminary."  "Kirkc- 
bladet,"  published  since  1877,  became  the  organ  of 
the  new  organization. 


§    3-  OKr.ANlZATIONS.  4I9 

C.     The    United    Danish   Evangelical   Lutheran    Church    in 
America  (1896). 

After  considerahk'  diicussion  iu  the  papers,  and 
bcvcral  meetings,  the  two  last  naineil  church  bodies 
a^eed  to  unite.  A  cummittce  vva>  appointed  to 
prepare  articles  of  agreement,  which  were  adopted 
by  the  annual  meetings  of  both  parties,  and  in  the 
fall  of  1896  delegates  from  both  met  in  Minneapolis, 
Minn.,  formed  the  United  Danish  Evangelical  Lu- 
theran Church  of  America,  and  elected  ofticers.  The 
united  church  had  then  63  pastors,  8  missionaries,  127 
cungrcgatious  and  Oo  preaching  stations.  It  now 
(1915)  ha.-,  133  pastors  and  professors,  about  300 
congregations  and  preaching  stations,  and  a  mem- 
bership ui  about  23,000.  Trinity  Seminary,  Blair, 
Xeb.,  22  students,  2  professors,  1'.  ii.  \'ig,  president. 
Dana  College,  Blair,  Neb.,  has  10  professors  and  about 
160  students.  High  Schools  at  Kenniare,  X.  D.,  Ra- 
cine, Wis.,  and  Elk  Horn,  la.  Publishing  House, 
Blair,  Xeb.,  Mr.  11.  Skov-Nielsen,  Mgr.  Two  Or- 
phans' Homes,  Waupaca,  Wis.,  and  Elk  Horn,  la. 
Sanatorium  for  consumptives.  Brush,  Colo.  Old  Peo- 
ples' Home,  Brush,  Colo.  Foreign  Missions:  Japan  — 
5  missionaries;  Home  Missions:  Moodys,  Okla.  —  4 
missionaries;  Mission  in  Utah.  Rev.  J.  Th.  Lund; 
Inner  Missions:  Emigration  Missions:  Brooklyn,  X. 
Y.,  Boston,  Mass.,  and  Seamans'  Mission  at  San  Fran- 
cisco, Cal. 

7.     The  Danish  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 

.\ftcr  the  rupture  in  1894,  the  Grundtvigians  were 
sustained  by  help  from  Denmark.     Several  candidates 


420  THE   DANISH    LUTHERANS.  §    32 

came  over  from  Denmark  and  served  for  some  years 
in  America.  The  Danish  churcli  now  has  100  pastors 
and  professors,  about  100  congregations  and  a  mem- 
bership of  about  20,000.  Theological  Seminary  at 
Grand  View,  Des  Moines,  la.  High  Schools  at  Nysted, 
Neb.,  Solvang-,  Cal,  Tyler,  Minn.,  and  Ashland,  Mich. 
Orphans'  Homes:  Chicago,  111.,  Perthamboy,  N.  J., 
Tyler,  Minn.    Old  People's  Home:  Des  Moines,  la. 


CHAPTER  X. 
§  33.     Small  Synods  of  Different  Languages. 


1.     The   Icelandic  Lutheran  Synod. 

The  first  settlement  of  Icelanders  at  Manitoba. 
Canada,  and  in  Minnesota  (1875)  was  followed  by 
an  immigration  lo  North  Dakota  and  to  Northwest 
Canada.  The  Revs.  Jon  Bjornason  and  Pall  Thor- 
lackson  organized  churches  in  Manitoba  in  1877  and 
1878.  Thurlackson.  alter  forming  congregations  in 
North  Dakota,  died  there  in  1882.  In  1885  two  pas- 
tors (J.  Bjornason  and  H.  B.  Thcrgrimso;  founded 
a  synod  which  now  has  50  congregations,  15  pastors 
and  two  students  who  serve  as  missionaries.  Bjorna- 
son was  president  of  this  synod  for  23  years.  There 
are  about  23,000  Icelanders  in  Canada  and  North 
America.  Many  have  no  church  affiliation,  and  a  num- 
ber of  congregations  are  without  ministerial  supply. 
The  synod  publishes  a  monthly  paper  ('"Sameiningin"). 
and  has  its  own  Sunday-school  literature,  liturgy  and 
hvmnal.  Its  pastors  are  mostly  graduates  of  the 
Chicago  Seminary  (General  Council).  It  shares  the 
theological  views  of  the  General  Council,  having  no 
tendency  toward  modern  liberalism.  Two  years  ago 
it  founded  a  high  school  at  Winnipeg,  Man.,  nam- 
ing it  after  Jon  Bjornason,  the  worthy  pioneer  of 
the  synod.  The  school  has  3  professors  and  30  stu- 
dents. Recently  the  synod  acquired  a  home  for  the 
aged. 

(421) 


422  SMALL    SYNODS   OF  DIFF.    LANGUAGES.  §    33 

2.     The    Suomi    (Finnish)    Synod. 

The  Finnish  Ev.  Luth.  Synod  in  America,  also 
called  the  Suoini  Synod,  was  founded  at  Calumet, 
Alich.,  March  25,  1890.  In  the  beginning  it  had  5 
pastors  and  9  congregations.  To-day  (1915)  it  con- 
sists of  35  ministers,  85  church  buildings,  132  con- 
gregations and  30,000  communicants.  It  maintains 
47  parish  schools  and  50  teachers.  Total  valuation  of 
property,  $369,924.00.  For  missionary  purposes  it 
raised  $4,000.00  in  1915.  Its  main  enterprise  is  the 
Suomi  College,  connected  with  the  theological  sem- 
inary at  Hancock,  Mich.  The  school,  opened  in  a 
rented  house  in  the  fall  of  1896,  acquired  property  of 
its  own  in  1900  and  has  to-day  10  professors  and  140 
scholars.  The  President  of  the  institution  is  Dr.  J.  K. 
Nikander.  The  theological  department  has  two  pro- 
fessors and  9  students.  Confessionally  this  synod 
is  akin  to  the  Swedish  Augustana  Synod  and  the  Gen- 
eral Council. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

§  34.     Constitutional  Forms  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America. 


Annotation:  This  is  merely  a  symposium  of  the  excellent  material 
collected  by  Prof.  O.  Kraushaar  in  his  book:  "Die  Vcrfassungsformcn 
dcr  Luth.  Kirche  Amerikas,"  1911.  For  a  more  detailed  account  the 
reader  has  to  consult  the  volume  of  Prof.  Kraushaar.  As  in  his  book, 
so  also  here,  we  are  not  able  to  consider  the  condition  among  the 
Scandinavians.  This  cannot  well  be  done  until  the  Scandinavians  them- 
selves have  given  to  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  a  work  like  th.it 
of  Prof.  Kraushaar. 

1.     Congregational   Constitutions. 

The  conptitutional  reg^ulations  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  ill  America  arc  the  result  of  a  gradual  de- 
velopment closely  connected  with  the  history  of 
American  Luthcrani.sm.  This  appears  from  a  careful 
perusal  of  the  preceding  chapters.  When  Muhlen- 
berg, the  first  to  undertake  the  organization  of  dif- 
ferent congregations,  entered  upon  his  work,  "he 
found  a  number  of  organized  churches  whose  con- 
stitutional rules  were  strikingly  alike."  -'"  He  dis- 
covered congregations  with  elders  and  councilmen. 
The  lavmen  who  had  formed  these  organizations  ha'l 
no  doubt  gotten  their  ideas  from  Reformed  congre- 
gations surrounding  them.  Fabririus  carried  similar 
principles  from  Xew  York  to  the  Swedes  in  Pcnn- 
svlvania.  Germans  immigrating  to  New  York  prob- 
ably borrowed  them  from  the  Dutch  Lutherans.   These 

"•  O.   Kraushaar,   p.    7. 

("423) 


424  CONSTITUTIONAL    FORMS.  §    34/ 

rules  prevailed  also  under  W.  C.  Berkenmeyer  and 
Joh.  K.  Stoever,  the  latter  being  the  chief  organizer 
of  congregations  in  Pennsylvania. 

Lutheran  congregations  at  London  and  Amster- 
dam, which  served  as  models  for  the  American 
cinirches,  had  worked  out  some  constitutions  which 
were  used  as  ideals  at  the  founding  of  ntw  churches. 
Muhlenberg,  having  familiarized  himself  v/ith  these 
constitutions  at  London,  Ebenezer  and  New  York, 
used  them  in  1750  in  creating  a  constitution  for 
the  Augustus  congregation  of  Trappe  (New  Provi- 
dence), -'^  and  in  1762  in  collaborating  with  \Vrangel 
to  give  a  constitution  lor  St.  Michael's  Church  in 
Philadelphia.  This  constitution  conferred  upon  the 
congregations  "supreme  control  of  their  own  affairs, 
such  as  the  choice  of  a  clergyman,  the  election  of 
officers,  etc.  It  was  a  congregational  government, 
based  upon  the  free  will  and  consent  of  the  members, 
thus  guaranteeing  an  activity  along  Scriptural  and 
confessional  lines."  The  government,  on  the  part  of 
the  congregations,  was  not  direct,  but  they  elected 
pastors  and  officers,  and  these  formed  the  council, 
which  administered  the  affairs.  In  case  a  pastor  was 
to  be  called  or  deposed,  synodical  advice  was  also  pro- 
vided for.  '-'^  This  formula  of  government  was 
amended  in  1791  to  the  effect  that  congregations 
should  call  a  pastor,  elect  officers,  etc.,  without  the 
consent  of  the  synod.  Should  the  minister  become 
president  of  the  council,  he  would  hold  this  office 
as  a  special  privilege  conferred  upon  him  by  the  con- 
crrcrratton.      All    conrrccrational    matters    were    beins: 


-''■  O.    Kraushaar,    pp.    18-25. 
-■'*  O.   Kraiishaar,   p.  26. 


§    34.'  iON(.;Ki:(.iAT10NAL    CONSTiTUTlONS.  4^5 

handled  by  the  council  which  was  expected  to  sub- 
mit to  the  congregations  only  business  of  vital  im- 
portance, such  as  financial  conditions,  etc.  The  church 
council  —  consisting  of  six  elders,  six  deacons  and 
the  pastor  —  received  new  members,  dismissed  them, 
exercised  church  di>cipline,  even  against  the  min- 
ibters.  otVicers  and  members,  represented  the  congre- 
gation in  court,  issued  orders,  adopted  by-laws  and, 
in  short,  administered  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
preservation  and  regulation  of  the  pari.->h. 

This  formula  of  government  was  the  model  for 
the  congregations  throughout  New  York  and  I'enn- 
sylvania.  True,  the  synods  of  these  states  later  com- 
posed constitutions  of  their  own  (Pennsylvania,  1872; 
New  York,  1852),  but  these  were  based  upon  the 
original  constitution  of  the  patriarch.  This  constitu- 
tion of  Muhlenberg  was  (1823)  rcC(nK'.tructed  into 
the  "Formula  for  the  government  amd  discipline  of 
Ev.  Luth.  Church"  (enlarged  in  1827  and  1864), 
Bind  in  this  form  it  was  recommended  by  the  General 
Synod  to  the  district  synods.  The  changes  made  in 
the  revised  edition  gave  larger  authority  to  the  pas- 
te )rs  and  the  synods.  -•"  The  constitution  for  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  the  South  moved  along  the  same 
line.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  and  the  Tenne.ssee 
Synod  based  their  constitutions  on  that  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  (1833  sq.).  Here,  however,  the  church 
council  and  not  the  synod  is  the  highest  authority. 
When  revised  in  1853  the  obligation  to  "the  doctrine 
of  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church" 
was  made  unalterable.  The  old  practice  of  pulpit 
exchange    with    the    Reformed    was    eliminated.      In 


«»0.    Krau»ha.-»r,    pp.    83-84. 


426  CONSTITUTIONAL    FORMS.  §    34/ 

1893  this  old  constitution,  which  could  be  traced  back 
to  the  work  of  Muhlenberg,  was  displaced  by  one  of 
Missourian  origin  (1843). 

Western  synods  organized  their  congregations  ab- 
solutely independent  of  congregational  constitutions 
in  the  East.  Bu£Falo  Synod  had  no  constitution  made 
in  America  until  1886.  Influenced  by  Grabau's  ideas 
of  the  ministry,  the  old  constitutions  of  Saxony  and 
Pomerania  were  regarded  as  sufficient.  In  1886  a 
constitution  for  the  congregation  in  Buffalo  was  cre- 
ated, which  then  became  the  model  for  others.  ^®° 
Councilmen  are  elected  for  life.  The  pastor  has 
many  rights  and  privileges,  not  on  account  of  the 
ofifice  he  holds,  but  in  the  interest  of  good  order. 

In  the  spring  of  1843  Walther  composed  a  con- 
stitution of  only  21  paragraphs  for  Trinity  Church, 
St.  Louis.  -*^  It  dealt  largely  with  questions  of  mem- 
bership, contributions  and  the  congregational  ballot, 
conferring  no  privileges  upon  the  council,  but  vesting 
all  authority  in  the  congregation,  which  in  its  monthly 
meetings  decides  concerning  the  reception  of  new 
members  and  all  other  matters  pertaining  to  the 
Church,  This  constitution  served  as  a  model  in  the 
Missouri  Synod. 

The  Iowa  Synod  adopted  Loehe's  constitution  in 
the  greatly  simplified  form  given  to  it  at  a  pastoral 
conference,  held  in  April,  1855.^®^  A  peculiarity  of  this 
constitution  consists  in  this,  that  pastors  and  officers 
of  the  synod  are  given  a  part  in  calling  the  ministers. 
The   president    of   the    synod    suggests    a    candidate, 


==soo.    Kraushaar,    pp.    107-n3. 
=^1  O.   Kraushaar,  pp.   126-129. 

-■*-  The    first    form    vainly    sought    by    Prof.    Kraushaar   is    found    in 
the   synodical  chronicles,  pp.  8-10;   the  alterations  of  1856  on  p.   16. 


§    34.'  CONGREGATIONAL    CONSTITUTIONS.  42/ 

while  the  election  by  congregational  vote  takes  place 
in  the  presence  uf  some  clergyman,  if  it  is  at  all 
possible.  It  is  not  clear  where  the  authority  to  depose 
an  unworthy  minister  rests.  Candidates  for  member- 
ship announce  their  intention  to  the  pastor,  and  thet'. 
"are  received  among  the  catechumens."  A  revision 
(1850)  added  some  regulations  concerning  secret  so- 
cieties, dances,  etc.  This  constitution  had  as  yet  no 
rules  about  congregational  meetings,  property  and 
officers.  Here  the  churches  were  to  be  guided  by 
the  rules  of  the  state  in  which  they  were  located. 
An  entirely  new  constitution  was  presented  in  1877 
(by  Deindoerfer).  and  came  into  general  use.  Here 
those  former  peculiarities  have  disappeared.  The 
congregation  has  supreme  authority,  and,  while  in 
case  of  unsettled  controversies  it  may  ask  the  ad- 
vice of  the  synod,  such  advice  etuis  with  the  force  of 
its  arguments. 

All  these  constitutions,  whether  Prcsb}tcrian  or 
Congregational  in  character,  rest  on  the  principle, 
expressed  in  the  Formula  of  Concord:'-®^  "That  the 
Church  of  God  of  every  place  and  every  time  has. 
according  to  its  circumstances,  the  authority,  power 
and  right  to  change,  to  diminish  and  to  increase  them 
(the  ceremonies),  without  thoughtlessness  and  of- 
fence, in  an  orderly  and  becoming  way,  as  at  any  time 
it  may  be  regarded  most  profitable,  most  beneficial 
and  the  best  for  good  order.  Christian  discipline,  anrl 
the  edification  of  the  Church." 


'Jacobs'    Book   of   Concord,    p.   645,   ,•». 


428  CONSTITUTIONAL    FORMS.  §    34,^ 

2.     Synodical  Constitutions. 

Muhlenberg  took  part  in  the  composition  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  of 
1781.  This  document,  although  not  recorded  in  the 
protocol  until  1781,  was  completed  in  1778.--*  It 
was  revised  in  1792  and  again  in  1841.  An  almost 
entirely  new  constitution,  was  adopted  in  1867.  The 
latter  was  revised  in  1886  and  in  1906. 

The  constitution  of  1792  became  the  model  for 
the  synodical  constitutions  of  the  New  York  Min- 
isterium of  1794  (revised  in  1816,  1870,  1883)  and 
of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  (1824  and  1848).  On  this 
same  constitution  (of  1792)  is  also  based  the  con- 
stitution which  the  General  Synod  recommended  to 
its  districts  and  which  has  been  the  instrument  for 
the  organization  of  all  synods  that  were  ever  con- 
nected with  that  body.  The  synods  of  the  South  also 
used  this  constitution.  The  General  Synod  adopted 
it  in  1829  (cf.  §  11,  1,  a),  revised  it  somewhat  in  1835 
and  1864  and  more  thorouglily  in  1875.  The  con- 
stitution of  1792  conferred  upon  lay  delegates  the 
right  to  vote  (with  certain  limitations),  which  in  tlie 
constitution  of  1781  was  given  only  to  the  pastors. 
Eventually  the  laymen  received  the  voting  privilege 
unreservedly. 

The  Missouri  Synod  pursued  a  path  of  its  own. 
The  constitution  which  Walther  suggested  at  the  first 
meeting  was  adopted  as  the  basis  for  the  founding 
of  the  Missouri  Synod  (cf.  §  22,  4).  When  the  di- 
vision into  districts  took  place  (1854).  this  constitu- 
tion was  revised  and  is  still  valid.  ''®^    However,  since 

^*  O.    Kraushaar,    pp.    234-244. 

^^  Some    demandin?    amrndments. 


§    34.'  SY NODICAL    CONSTITUTIONS.  429 

1914  a  committee  has  been  authorized  to  make  new 
revisions.  But  such  a  revision  will  have  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  every  cong^regation  before  it  can  be  ac- 
cci)ted.  While  Walther's  constitution  for  the  con- 
•;^regation  is  very  brief,  the  one  for  the  synod  is  ex- 
ceedingly lengthy,  containing  at  first  (1846)  90  and 
later  (1854^  120  sections.  Tt  displays  the  dread  of 
hierarchy.  The  synod  is  composed  of  the  local  con- 
gregations which  unite  for  common  work.  Congrega- 
tions are  represented  by  pastors  and  lay  delegates. 
The  vote  is  confined  to  pastors  of  congregations  who 
have  actually  united  with  the  synod.  Pastors  emeriti 
and  professors  arc  only  advisory  members.  Only 
upon  special  invitation  can  the  synod  take  part  in  the 
election  or  the  deposition  of  a  pastor.  The  constitu- 
tion contains  a  great  deal  which  properly  belongs  to 
works  on  pastoral  theology,  to  church  legislation  as 
a  branch  of  science  and  to  the  minutes  of  synods. 
Tt  can  be  changed  only  by  the  vote  of  all  congrega- 
tions connected  with  the  synods.  There  is,  for  in- 
stance, the  proposition  of  changing  the  mode  of  elect- 
ing professors.  Not  even  that  could  be  done  without 
previously  consulting  all  the  congregations.  Oflficers 
are  elected  for  a  period  of  three  years. 

TTie  Buffalo  Synod  at  first  was  governed  by  the 
rules  on  church  government  as  they  prevailed  in 
Saxony  and  Pomerania,  adding  thereto  in  1861.  Not 
until  1886  did  it  compose  its  own  constitution,  which 
by  greatly  altering  the  original  hierarchical  features, 
puts  the  Buffalo  Synod  practically  on  the  same  basis 
as  other  synods.  The  difference  is  largely  one  of 
phraseology,    and    a    resolution    rcfjuiring   proper    in- 


430  CONSTITUTIONAL    FORMS.  §    34,- 

terpretation  would  remove  the  last  remnant  of  what 
this  synod  originally  stood  for  (comp.  §  23,  1). 

The  Iowa  Synod  had  no  real  synodical  constitution 
until  1864,  but  in  place  of  it  a  number  of  resolu- 
tions bearing  on  the  administration  of  the  synod.  The 
constitution  of  1864,  -*"^  containing  only  31  brief  para- 
graphs, was  revised  in  1869,  1873  (division  into  dis- 
tricts), and  added  to  in  1879  and  1888  (representation 
of  districts  in  a  general  body).  In  1904  all  sections 
subjected  to  alterations  were  put  into  a  class  by  them- 
selves, and  thus  the  constitution  was  greatly  simpli- 
fied. The  leading  idea  is  the  centralization  in  the  synod 
of  all  efforts  for  the  common  cause.  The  districts  (as 
in  the  Missouri  Synod)  are  merely  territorial  sub- 
divisions, arranging  local  matters,  and  serving  as  the 
instrument  of  the  general  body  for  the  guardianship 
over  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  individual  pastors 
and  cong-regations.  All  ministers  who,  though  their 
congregations  are  not  connected  with  the  synod, 
take  a  part  in  the  general  work,  are  entitled  to  vote, 
while,  as  to  the  laymen,  this  privilege  is  given  only 
to  delegates  of  congregations  which  have  actuallv 
united  with   tlie   svnod. 


'  O.    Kiaushaar,    pp.    373-376. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

GEiNERAL  REVIEW. 


§  35.     A  Discussion  of  the  Development  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America. 

Tlirough  Muhlenberg-  the  early  Lutheran  congre- 
g^ations  were  placed  upon  the  basis  of  the  Lutheran 
confessions.  It  is  true  that  Muhlenberg's  Lutheran- 
ism  lacked  the  clear  vision  that  comes  only  as  a  re- 
sult of  conflict  with  opposing  tendencies.  With  the 
exception  of  the  stand  against  the  adherents  of  Zinzen- 
dorf,  we  do  not  notice  any  particular  theological  op- 
position, on  the  part  of  Muhlenberg,  to  the  various 
Reformed  influences  which  surrounded  him.  We  may 
even  discover  some  embryonic  principles  which,  in 
their  ultimate  development,  contributed  towards  pro- 
ducing a  questionable  type  of  Lutheranism  (of.  §  9). 
But  there  was  not  much  of  this  whh  Muhlenberg, 
and  it  was  unintentional  on  his  part.  He  would  have 
rejected  the  development  which  appeared  later  in 
"American  Lutheranism." 

Connection  with  Germany  was  interrupted  for  a 
time  by  the  War  of  Independence.  For  several  years 
but  few  laymen  and  ministers  immigrated  to  this 
country.  This  at  least  brought  the  advantage  that 
the  -American  Church  was  not  altogether  swamped 
with  the  Rationalism  then  dominating  Germany.  On 
the  other  hand,  however,  we  notice  that  a   tendency 

(431) 


432  DEVELOPMENT   OF    THE!    LUTH.    CHIJKCH.  §    35 

toward    unionism,    which    is    ever    characteristic    of 
Pietism,  made  headway  in  that  period. 

The  men  who  founded  the  General  Synod  were 
anxious  to  preserve  the  identity  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  this  country.  It  was  unfortunate,  how- 
ever, that  they  had  drifted  away  from  tlie  Lutheran- 
ism  of  Muhlenberg,  and  had  unconsciously  inhaled 
the  atmosphere  of  doctrinal  indifferentism,  and  thus 
could  not  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  historic  Lu- 
theran Church  can  exist  only  on  a  confessional  basis. 
A  further  misfortune  was  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  (1823)  and  the  lack  of 
co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio 
and  the  Synod  of  Tennessee.  Even  if  there  were  un- 
Lutheran  tendencies  in  these  synods,  especially  in  the 
Pennsylvania  and  Ohio,  yet,  because  of  their  German 
blood,  these  synods  adhered  wath  great  tenacity  to  the 
traditions  of  the  past,  and  would  have  given  an  entirely 
different  character  to  later  developments,  had  they 
taken  a  part  in  the  forming  of  the  General  Synod. 
Thus  the  General  Synod  assumed  an  English  physi- 
ognomy from  the  very  beginning,  losing  the  advantage 
of  German  influences,  and  this,  too,  at  a  time  when 
Germany,  reacting  against  Rationalism  and  the  Union, 
was  experiencing  a  great  revival  of  Lutheran  con- 
sciousness. Laymen  and  ministers  who  arrived  from 
Germany  with  a  faith  renewed  and  strengthened, 
steered  clear  of  the  General  Synod,  and  joined  other 
synods,  which  thus  acquired  excellent  material  for 
their  congregations,  and  especially  a  superior  class 
of  theological  scholars.  The  confessional  element  in 
the  General  S3mod  remained  in  the  minority,  its  press 
and  seminary  being  controlled  bv  leaders  of  "Ameri- 


§  35         i)i:v»:njPMLNT  of  thk  llih.  liicKtii.  43.J 

can  Lutheranisni."  With  the  influx  of  ttlhcr  syntxls 
(  Hartwick,  Fran.keaii,  Kast  Ohio  and  Melanchthon 
synods),  which,  on  account  of  their  doctrinal  laxity, 
preferred  the  Cicneral  Synod  to  other  synods,  the 
character  oi  the  General  Synod  became  increasingly 
lukewarm,  until  it  reached  the  climax  oi  Liberalism 
in  the  "Definite  Theological  Platform." 

A  reaction  was  bound  to  follow.  Under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  which  had  returned 
to  the  General  Synod,  and  whose  leader.-,  were  men 
of  strong  Lutheran  convictions,  a  rupture  took  place 
at  Fort  Wayne,  resulting  in  the  forming  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council.  The  explicit  comments  on  this  move- 
ment in  preceding  pages  (§§  9  and  10)  make  repe- 
tition unnecessary;  yet  we  may  raise  the  ques- 
tion: '"Was  this  rupture  unavoidable?"  Those  who 
answer  in  the  affirmative  refer  to  the  development 
of  the  General  Council,  which  has,  unhindered  by 
antagonistic  influences,  developed  into  a  body  of 
faithfulness  to  Lutheran  standards  and  of  adaptability 
to  the  American  people.  Others  —  good  Lutherans, 
too  —  answering  in  the  negative,  argue  that,  if  the 
General  Synod  has  grown  more  conservative  in 
spite  ui  the  exodus  of  the  General  Council,  huw 
much  more  rapid  such  a  development  would  have  been, 
had  the  withdrawing  element  remained  with  the 
organization  (giving  to  it  the  benefit  of  its  views) 
instead  of  antagonizing  it  by  a  schism !  But  since  the 
separation  has  taken  place,  we  must  deal  witli  facts 
instea<l  of  philosophi/ing  about  possibilities.  We 
simply  repeat  that  the  way  which  was  not  chosen 
was  not  altogether  impassable.   Had  the  two  elements 

28 


434  DEVELOPMENT   OF    THE    LUTH.    CHURCH.  ^    35 

remained  together,  severe  conflicts  might  have  con- 
tinued for  a  while,  but  the  result  would  not  have  been 
doubtful.  Wherever  negations  and  affirmations  clash, 
affirmations  will  conquer  in  the  end,  although  nega- 
tions under  certain  circumstances  may  make  valuable 
contributions  to  the  development  of  affirmations. 

The  founding  of  the  General  Council  led  naturally 
to  the  full  acceptance  of  all  the  Lutheran  confessions. 
Dr.  Krauth  had  already  realized  that  the  adoption  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  historical  significance 
was  a  matter  of  vital  importance.  A  further  impetus 
to  this  position  was  given  by  the  prospect  of  attract- 
ing synods  of  very  conservative  views.  That  a  definite 
and  organic  union  among  all  conservative  Lutherans 
failed,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  General  Council 
could  not  concede  in  matters  of  practice  what  was 
demanded  by  the  Western  synods. 

Alongside  of  the  old  synods  of  the  East  (General 
Synod,  General  Council.  United  Synod  of  the  South), 
the  synods  of  the  West  formed  an  independent  stream. 
We  are  thinking  of  the  Synods  of  Missouri,  Buffalo,-" 
Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  the  Swedes  and  the  Nor- 
wegians. While  Ohio  belongs  to  the  older  synods, 
it  has  gradually  adopted  the  attitude  of  the  Western 
synods.  Men  like  Walther,  Loehe,  Wyneken,  Grabau, 
Loy  developed  a  confessional  wing  which  not  only 
accepts  all  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but 
insists  on  absolute  doctrinal  unity,  does  its  parochial 
work  on  the  old  Lutheran  basis,  and  in  its  practice 
takes  a  bold  positon  against  the  American  spirit 
(church  fellowship  and  secret  societies).    The  majority 

=«'  The  mention  of  Buffalo  in  this  connection  should  not  be  snr- 
prising,  when  we  remember  that  this  synod  was  well  represented  in 
Wisconsin. 


^    35  DEVELOPMENT   OF    THE    LUTH.    CHLKCH.  435 

of  these  synods  arc  unite(i  in  the  Sy nodical  Confer- 
ence.-** 

A  meditating  position,  cmbodyiny^  vital  elcniciUs 
of  trutli,  is  occupied  by  Iowa.  While  Missouri  and 
cong^enial  synods  have,  in  their  pursuit  of  "dog- 
matical-traditional" ideals,  severed  their  connection 
with  the  Church  in  Germany,  Iowa  has  adhered  to  a 
"historic-exegetical"  point  of  view  both  in  the  adop- 
tion of  the  confessions  and  in  the  principle  of  "open 
(|uestions."  Being  in  more  or  less  accord  with  the 
I)Ositive  theology  of  Germany,  it  is  also  closely  rclateil 
to  the  General  Council. 

The  General  Synod  has  grown  mi>rc  conservative. 
}'or  a  long  time  the  founding  of  the  General  Council 
and  the  bitterness  resulting  therefrom,  impeded  such 
a  development.  But  after  the  smoke  of  battle  had 
cleared  away,  the  way  Avas  open  for  an  impartial  con- 
sideration of  the  confessional  questions.  The  Con- 
servatives constantly  gained  in  influence.  The  culmi- 
nation of  this  confessional  movement  was  reached  at 
llie  RichmoiKl  convention  (1909).  See  the  resolu- 
ticms  on  pages  451-453.  The  confessional  position  as 
fmally  expressed  was  not  exactly  the  position  of  the 
General  Council.  The  General  Synod  did  not  put  the 
Secondary  Symbols  on  the  same  level  with  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  but  she  declared  that  by  accepting 
the  Augsburg  Confession  she  meant  the  Invariata. 
and  that  she  considered  the  Secondary  Symbols  to  be 
of  "great  historical  and  interpretative  value."  In  the 
express    adoption    of    the    Unaltered    Augsburg    Con- 


"Thr  Swedes  united  witli  the  Council.  The  Ohio  Synod  withdrew. 
•tIso  the  Norwegi.-in  Synod.  Missouri  never  agreed  with  I"w»,  which 
leaned  toward  the  Council.  5>onie  Norwegians  arr  inrlrpmdrnt.  A 
rnfon   of  all   Norwegians  is   under  consideration. 


436  IiEVELOr'.\rENT   OF    THE    LUTH.    CHURCH.  §    35 

fcssion  the  General  Synod  once  for  all  squared  itself 
with  historical  Liitheranism;  for  it  means  the  accept- 
ance of  Luther's  theology  as  contrasted  with  that  of 
Melanchthon,  particularly  along  the  two  historically 
important  lines  of  Free  Will  and  the  Means  of  Grace."" 
While  the  General  Synod  does  not  commit  herself  to 
every  view  expressed  in  the  Secondary  Symbols,  yet, 
by  adopted  the  Invariata  and  recognizing  the  histor- 
ical and  interpretative  value  of  the  Secondary  Sym- 
bols, she  has  placed  herself  in  the  position  of  recog- 
nizing the  legitimate  development  of  the  Augustana, 
as  that  development  has  taken  place  in  the  Lutheran 
Church ;  that  is,  she  accepts  the  Augustana  in  the 
historical  sense. 

WHiile  the  Council  was  formed  by  Germans,  the 
development  in  the  General  Synod  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  English  element,  supported  by  the  Germans. 

However,  an  essential  difference  remains  between 
the  Synodical  Conference,  Ohio,  Buiifalo,  Iowa  and 
the  stricter  Norwegians,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Council,  the  General  Synod  and  the  United  Synod  of 
the  South,  on  the  other.  The  former  group  is  being 
largely  dominated  by  the  German  spirit.  It  adheres 
to  German  ideals  of  discipline  and  consistency,  ex- 
pressing themselves  in  the  application  of  confessional 
principles  to  congregational  practice ;  while  the  lat- 
ter synods  demand  an  increasing  adaptation  to  the 
American  spirit.  Here  any  defects  in  parochial  af- 
fairs are  to  be  overcome,  not  by  synodical  discipline, 
but  by  a  gradual  education.     The  practical  views  of 

»»It  involves  especially  Articles  H.,  XYHI.,  IV.,  and  V..  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  opposed  to  Synergism,  and  Articles  V.,  IX.  and 
X.,  on  the  means  of  grace,  with  corrcspondin,'?  articles  on  bo'li  pr.biccts 
in    (he    Secondary    Symbol?. 


§  36  i:\Ti; xs ION  ok  thk  i.urn.  church.  437 

the  American   take  tlic  pla<c  of  Crcrman  consistency 
of  action. 

But  in  spite  of  such  a  difference,  tiie  prospects 
for  the  union  of  American  Lutherans  are  brighter 
to-day  than  ever  before.  .\11  a^ree  in  recognizing 
the  Bible  as  tiie  sole  source,  rule  and  standard  of 
faith,  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  historical 
sense,  and  are  convinced  that  the  Lutheran  Church 
stands  for  the  most  perfect  form  of  religion  which 
has  been  revealed  to  us  by  history.  We  may  mention 
as  a  symptom  of  rcapproachment  the  moderate  tone 
being  observed  in  doctrinal  discussions,  and  also  the 
respectful  treatment  mutually  accorded  by  the  organs 
of  opposing  synods. 


§  36.     Review  of  the  Extension  of  the  Lutheran 
Church    in    America. 

The  Lutheran  Church  began  as  a  tiny  plant.  Tt 
had  small  beginnings  in  two  localities :  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania.  Later  we  notice  scattered  settle- 
ments al<:)ng  the  Atlantic  Coast  as  far  south  as 
Georgia.  Since  immigration  was  largely  directed 
to  Pennsylvania,  this  state  has  ever  recorded  the 
strongest  growth  of  Lutheran  rhurchcs.  In  the  be- 
ginning of  the  nineteenth  century  the  stream  of 
immigration,  crossing  the  mountains,  flowed  toward 
the  West,  and  resulted  in  strong  Lutheran  settle- 
ments, especially  in  Indiana  and  Ohio,  where  the  de- 
scendants of  Eastern  fvUtherans  (New  York.  Penn- 
sylvania,  Virginia)    established   themselves. 

The  great  inmiigration  of  the  nineteenth  century 
flooded  the  countrv  with  German  settlers.    These  filled 


438  EXTENSION    OF    THE    LUTH.    CHURCH.  §    36 

the  Eastern  church,  which  had  been  losing  ground 
by  the  anghcization  of  its  members,  formed  new  con- 
gregations and  eventually  covered  the  whole  West. 
Finally  the  stream  of  immigration  —  then  largely 
composed  of  people  who  had  settled  in  the  United 
States  —  was  directed  toward  New  England. 

Thus  in  course  of  time  we  find  a  strong  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America.  Statistics,  ever  fluctuat- 
ing, have  little  purpose.  Suffice  it  to  mention  th^ 
states  in  which  the  Lutheran  Church  compares  favor- 
ably with  the  denominations :  Minnesota,  Wisconsin, 
North  and  South  Dakota,  Iowa,  Pennsylvania  and 
Nebraska ;  or  arranged  according  to  the  numerical 
strength  of  Lutherans  :  Pennsylvania,  Wisconsin,  Min- 
nesota, Illinois,  Ohio,  New  York,  Iowa,  Michigan. 
Indiana,  Nebraska,  Missouri,  Maryland.  Statistics  of 
1910  locate  Lutherans  in  every  State  of  the  Union. ^"^ 

In  Germany  and  America,  among  friends  and 
foes,  it  has  become  customary  to  complain  of  the 
unhappy  divisions  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America. 
Someone,  revealing  his  own  ignorance,  has  spoken 
of  60  kinds  of  Lutherans.  There  are,  to  be  sure, 
four  large  organizations  and  16  smaller  synods.  But 
none  will  seriously  assert  that  the  Finns,  the  Ice- 
landers, the  Danes  and  the  Norwegians,  though  iso- 
lated in  their  own  spheres,  represent  different  types 
of  Lutheranism.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Iowa  and 
Ohio,  while  maintaining  independent  organizations, 
are  different  kinds  of  Lutherans. 

There  are,  in  fact,  only  three  divisions  of  Lutherans 
in  this  country :  one  representing  confessional  indif- 


**See   Carroll's    "The   Religious   Forces   of    the    U.    S.,"    revised    and 
brought  down  to  1910. 


§    3^>  EXTENSION    OF    THE    LLTH.    CUURCU.  439 

icrentism;  another  a  rigid  confessionalism ;  and  a 
third  a  conservative  Lutheranism.  But  these  are  not 
always  confined  to  synodical  limits. 

The  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country 
has  been  marked  !)}  violent  controversies.  Looking 
at  these  from  the  viewpoint  of  Christian  charity,  we 
do  not  doubt  that  niucii  olTcnce  has  been  given.  Men 
have  mistaken  their  personal  opinions  for  the  divine 
truth.  Human  obstinacy  may  have  been  substituted 
for  holy  zeal.  But,  on  the  whole,  it  must  be  con- 
ceded that  the  underlying  purpose  has  been  loyalty 
to  the  Word  of  God.  These  controversies  prove  that 
the  Church  has  not  lost  its  vitality,  and  is  still  able 
to  defy  the  new  '"science,"  with  its  scorn  of  an  in- 
fallible Bible. 

We  have  called  attention  to  the  difficulties  of  Lu- 
theran progress.  The  stage  of  transition  which  marks 
the  rising  generation,  linguistic  and  national  preju- 
dices, have  often  stood  in  the  way.  Again  there  has 
been  a  lack  of  competent  men.  But  the  Church  has 
taken  hold  of  these  problems  in  an  energetic  spirit, 
preparing  its  ministers  and  meeting  conditions  in 
America,  where  it  now  occupies  the  third  place  among 
the  Protestant  churches.  The  impression  ia  gaining 
ground  that  this  era  of  American  Neo-Rationalism 
demands  as  its  special  antidote  the  firm  position 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  P'reaching  Christ  crucified, 
the  justification  by  grace  of  the  repentant  sinner, 
it  will  give  rest  to  the  souls  that  starve  under  modern 
pulpits.  May  the  Lutheran  Church  ever  treasure  the 
teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  concerning  sin  and  sal- 
vation ;  for  the  preservation  of  the  old  Gospel  is  her 
God-given  mission  in  this  age  of  changing  conditions 
and  wavering  faith. 


^  37.  APPENDICES. 


I.  THE  DAVENPORT  THESES. 

(§  §29;  23,  11.) 

1.  The  oldest  subjects  of  controversy  between  the 
Synod  of  Iowa  and  the  Synod  of  Missouri  are  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  Ministry.  Concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  we  could  not  agree  with  the  Synod  of 
Missouri  when  it  declared  that  the  Church  in  its  nature  is 
invisible  in  the  sense  that  all  that  belongs  to  its  visibility 
must  be  excluded  from  the  definition  of  its  nature. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  we  maintained  that  the  Church 
is,  indeed,  chiefly  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of 
faith  in  the  heart,  but  that  it  is  also  the  communion  of  the 
Word  and  the  Sacraments,  and  that  in  this  sense  it  is  at 
once  visible  and  invisible. 

3.  Since  Missouri  in  its  colloquium  with  Bufialo  has 
conceded  that  the  communion  of  the  means  of  grace  must 
be  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  nature  of  the  Church,  we  no 
longer  regard  ourselves  as  holding  views  on  this  point  in 
opposition  to  those  of  Missouri. 

4.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  ministry,  we  cannot  concede 
that,  according  to  the  confession  of  our  Church,  the  min- 
istry originates  through  the  transference  of  the  rights  of 
the  spiritual  priesthood  possessed  by  the  individual  Chris- 
tian. 

5.  In  opposition  to  this  view,  we  maintain  that  the 
public  office  of  the  ministry  is  transmitted  by  God  through 
the  congregation  of  believers  in  its  entirety  and  essence  by 
means  of  the  regular  call,  because  the  "mandatum  de  con- 
stituendis  ministris"  (i.  e.,  the  command  to  ordain  preach- 
ers) is  not  given  to  the  individual  members,  but  to  the 
Church  as  such. 

(440) 


§    j-.l  THK    DAVENPORT    THESES.  44 1 

6.  In  connection  with  the  controversy  concerning  the 
Church  and  the  ministry,  a  difference  of  attitude  towards 
the  Church's  Symbols  became  manifest.  While  Missouri 
extended  the  obligation  of  the  symbols  to  all  the  statements 
contained  in  them  without  exception,  we  limited  the  obliga- 
tion to  those  statements  to  which  the  symbols  intended  to 
give  symbolical  fixedness;  and  accordingly  we  distinguished 
between  the  thetical  and  antithetical  decisions  as  the  sub- 
stance of  the  confessions  which  is  binding  on  the  con- 
science, and  the  casual  elaborations,  proofs,  etc.,  as  parts 
which  do  not  possess  immediate  and  independent  symbolical 
authority. 

7.  At  the  colloquium  at  Milwaukee,  Missouri  aban- 
doned the  assertion  that  each  and  every  doctrine  which 
occurs  in  any  manner  in  the  symbols  is  on  that  very  account 
binding;  and  we  on  our  part  abandoned  the  attempts,  by 
means  of  a  distinction  between  confessional  statements  and 
elaborative  or  demonstrative  statements,  to  define  the 
boundary  between  what  is  binding  and  what  is  not  binding 
in  the  symbols.  An  agreement  was  reached,  in  accordance 
with  which  both  sides  designated  all  the  articles  of  faith 
contained  in  the  symbols  as  confcssionally  binding. 

8.  In  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Last  Things,  which 
formed  another  subject  of  controversy  between  us  and  Mis- 
souri, the  first  point  to  be  mentioned  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
.•\ntichrist.  Missouri  maintained  that  the  Antichrist,  in  the 
real  sense  of  the  word,  is  the  pope  alone  and  exclusively: 
but   with    this   assertion   we   cannot   agree. 

9.  As  regards  the  pope,  we  accept  all  the  clcclaraiion'; 
of  our  Symbolical  Books  concerning  his  anti-Christian 
character,  and  acknowledge  that  all  the  marks  of  Antichrist 
which  they  enumerate  agree  with  the  pope's  kingdom  and 
members. 

10.  But  while  we  hereby  acknowledge  our  acceptance 
of  the  statements  of  our  confession  concerning  tlir  .\nti- 
rhrist  as  found  by  our  fathers  in  Dan.  11.  and  of  the  appli- 
cation which  they  made  of  those  marks  to  the  i)npacy.  we 
cannot  concede  that  the  respective  passages  in  our  Ssrm- 
bolical  Books  claim  to  exhaust  the  exegetical  interpretation 
of  the  prophecies  cited,  and  w  ■''>  "'■•*   rrrnrri   \t    ,«   Kring 


442  APPENDICES,  §   37,! 

in  conflict  with  our  confession  for  anj-  one  to  hold  that  the 
personification  of  all  these  anti-Christian  elements  in  a 
particular  individual  is  foretold. 

11.  As  regards  the  so-called  Chiliasm,  we  agree  with 
our  opponents  in  rejecting  every  doctrine  of  a  thousand 
years'  reign  which  would  at  any  time  rob  the  spiritual 
kingdom  of  our  Lord  of  its  character  as  a  spiritual  kingdom 
of  grace  and  the  cross,  and  convert  it  into  an  outward, 
earthly  and  worldly  kingdom. 

12.  On  the  other  hand,  while  we  do  not  as  a  synod 
diflfer  from  our  opponents  by  accepting  any  form  of  Chil- 
iasm, the  belief  that  the  reign  of  Christ  and  His  saints  for 
a  thousand  years,  as  prophesied  in  the  20th  chapter  of  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John,  is  still  a  matter  of  fulfillment  in  the 
future,  is  regarded  by  us  as  an  opinion  which  the  Church 
may  tolerate,  and  not  as  an  error  necessitating  exclusion 
from  our  church-fellowship. 

13.  Since  Missouri,  on  its  part,  has  retracted  the  as- 
sertion that  each  and  every  form  of  Chiliasm,  even  the 
subtle  and  most  subtle,  is  not  only  erroneous,  but  consti- 
tutes an  error  which  necessitates  exclusion  from  church 
fellowship,  and  we  on  our  part  have,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
our  opponents,  corrected  the  expressions  to  which  Missouri 
objected,  particularly  with  respect  to  a  future  two-fold 
coming  of  Christ,  the  difference  between  us  on  this  point 
is  substantially  confined  to  the  doctrine  of  the  first  resur- 
rection in  Rev.  20. 

14.  Missouri  not  only  most  decidedly  rejects  such  an 
interpretation  of  this  passage  as  would  apply  it  to  a  bodily 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  but  asserts  that  any  acceptance 
of  a  partial  resurrection  before  the  general  resurrection  is 
in  itself  a  denial  of  the  general  resurrection,  and  therefore 
a  fundamental  error,  in  connection  with  which  a  chiliastic 
opinion  which  might  otherwise  be  tolerated  becomes  a 
schismatical  heresy. 

15.  We,  on  the  contrary,  neither  desire  to  deliver  any 
official  synodical  opinion  as  to  whether  this  passage  must 
be  understood  as  referring  to  a  bodily  or  to  a  spiritual  res- 
urrection, nor  can  we  see  in  the  acceptance  of  a  partial 
resurrection  preceding  the  general  resurrection  the  shadow 


§    37,i  '^'^^    DAVENPORT    THBSKli.  443 

of  a  heresj',  since  in  Matt.  27,  at  least,  such  a  partial  pre- 
vious resurrection  is  taught  beyond  the  possibility  of  con- 
tradiction or  doubt.  And  finally  we  can  never  concede  that 
an  otherwise  unobjectionable  view  of  the  so-called  thou- 
sand years'  reig^n  can  become  an  heretical  error  through  the 
interpretation  of  Rev.  20:4  as  a  bodily  resurrection,  pro- 
vided that  no  attempt  is  made  to  specify  how  and  where  this 
reign  of  the  risen  saints  shall  take  place. 

16.  In  the  course  of  our  ecclesiastical  controversies,  the 
real  fundamental  difference  between  Missouri  and  Iowa  has 
been  seen  to  be  the  recognition  of  "open  questions,"  the 
existence  of  which  has  on  our  part  been  acknowledged  and 
proved,  but  which  has  on  the  part  of  Missouri  been  ener- 
getically denied. 

17.  By  this  expression  we  do  not,  of  courac,  mean  to 
say  that  the  respective  doctrines  are  in  themselves  doubt- 
ful or  uncertain,  nor  yet  that  they  may  be  arbitrarily  ac- 
cepted or  rejected,  but  simply  that  they  are  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  involving  separation  from  church-fellowship.  In 
distinction  from  articles  of  faith,  with  respect  to  wiiich 
there  must  exist  within  an  ecclesiastical  body  perfect  una- 
nimity, we  have  always  understood  "open  questions"  to 
mean  such  doctrines  as  might  be  the  subject  of  difference 
of  views  without  thereby  destroying  the  brotherhood  of 
faith  or  ecclesiastical  fellowship. 

18.  Open  questions  in  this  sense  cannot  be  such  doc- 
trines as  are  necessary  to  salvation  or  to  the  existence  of 
the  Church,  but  only  such  as  either  are  not  touched  upon  in 
God's  Word  at  all,  or  at  least  are  not  taught  in  perfectly 
clear  passages  of  Scripture  —  doctrines  concerning  which, 
therefore,  no  consensus  has  been  reached  in  the  Church, 
but  with  respect  to  which  differences  of  view  have  always 
been  found  among  orthodox  teachers.  In  addition  to  the 
points  mentioned  above,  we  include  among  these  doctrines 
that  concerning  Sunday,  i.  e..  that  in  the  New  Testament  the 
observance  of  a  particular  day  rests  for  the  Christians  in  no- 
wise upon  a  divine  command,  but  only  upon  an  inner 
necessity. 


444  APPENDICES.  §   37,1 

19.  Missouri,  on  the  other  hand,  regards  ii  as  unionism 
to  speak  of  doctrinal  opinions  which  may  be  permitted  to 
stand  side  by  side  in  the  Church,  and  at  the  colloquium  at 
Milwaukee  declared  that  such  a  difference  could  be  toler- 
ated only  when  it  referred  to  points  concerning  which  God's 
Word  contains  no  statement  at  all,  while  in  all  doctrines 
drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  whether  they  bear  upon  faith 
or  life,  there  must  necessarily  be  only  one  opinion. 

20.  Recently,  however,  Missouri  has  been  obliged,  by 
the  course  of  the  controversy  on  usury  in  her  own  midst, 
to  abandon  her  principle  and  to  adopt  ours. 

21.  The  particular  declaration  of  our  opponents  in 
which  we  find  this  acknowledgment  of  the  principles  ex- 
pressed is  the  following:  "Know  them,  everj^  one  who  de- 
sires to  know,  that  we  know  how  to  distinguish  between 
articles  of  faith  and  such  doctrines  of  Scripture  as  are  not 
articles  of  faith.  We  do  not,  indeed,  permit  any  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  whether  it  appear  great  or  small,  to  be  made  an 
open  question;  but  while  we  regard  it  necessary  to  contend 
to  the  uttermost  for  every  article  of  faith  as  one  on  which 
our  faith  and  hope  depend,  to  condemn  the  opposing  error, 
and  to  deny  fellowship  to  those  who  obstinately  contradict, 
we  by  no  means  regard  it  necessary  under  all  circumstances 
to  go  to  the  utmost  extreme  in  contending  for  other  doc- 
trines of  Scripture  which  are  not  articles  of  faith,  much  less 
to  pass  the  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  the  opposing 
error,  though  we  reject  it,  nor  to  deny  to  those  v/ho  err 
on  this  point  the  fellowship  of  faith. 

"If  in  any  controversy  the  question  is  one  concerning 
doctrines  which  do  not  belong  to  the  articles  of  faith,  then 
for  us  all  depends  on  whether  the  opponents  show  that  they 
gainsay  because  they  do  not  want  to  subject  themselves  to 
God's  Word,  that  is,  whether,  while  they  apparently  let  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  God's  Word  stand,  they  overturn 
the  foundation  on  which  all  those  doctrines  rest,  namely, 
God's  Word." 


§    Ji,J.\\        l-liOf'OSITiONS    CONCERNING    ELECTION.  445 


II.    THE   THIRTEEN    PROPOSITIONS    OF    MIS- 
SOURI CONCERNING  ELECTION. 

(§  §  23,  111;  28,  2c;  29.) 

Propotition   1. 

We  believe,  Iciich  and  confess  that  God  loved  the  whole 
world  from  eternity,  created  all  rnen  lor  salvation,  and  none 
for  damnation,  and  that  He  earnestly  wills  the  salvation  oi' 
all  men.  And  \vc  reject  and  condemn,  therefore,  with  all 
our  heart,  the  opposing  Calvinistic  doctrine. 

Proposition  2. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  the  Son  of  God 
came  into  the  wt)rld  for  all  men,  bore  and  atoned  for  the 
sins  of  all  men,  and  redeemed  all  men  without  exception; 
and  we  reject  and  condemn,  therefore,  wiih  all  our  heart 
the  opposing  Calvinistic  doctrine. 

Proposition  3. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  tliat  God  through  the 
means  of  grace  calls  men  earnestly,  that  is,  with  the  pur- 
pose that  through  the  call  they  shall  come  to  repentance 
and  faith,  continue  in  it  also  to  the  end,  and  thus  finally 
obtain  salvation;  and  that  to  this  end  God  through  the 
means  of  grace  offers  to  them  the  salvation  accjuired  by 
Christ's  sati.sfaction,  and  the  power  to  apprehend  it  by 
faith:  and  we  reject  and  condemn,  therefore,  with  all  our 
heart,   the   opposing   Calvinistic    doctrine. 

Proposition  4. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  no  man  will  be  lost 
because  God  did  not  desire  to  save  him  and  passed  him  by 
with  His  grace,  nor  because  God  did  not  orter  to  him  also 
the  grace  of  steadfastness  or  did  not  desire  to  bestow  it 
upon  him;  but  that  all  men  who  are  lost,  are  lost  through 
their  own   fault.  n.Tnu-ly.  because  nf  their   unbelief,  and   be- 


446  APPENDICES.  §   37,11 

cause  they  obstinately  resist  the  Word  and  grace  lo  the 
end;  and  that  the  "cause  for  this  despising  of  the  Word  is 
not  God's  knowledge  (vel  praescientia  vel  praesdestinatio), 
but  the  perverse  will  of  man,  who  rejects  or  perverts  the 
means  and  instrument  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  God  offers 
him  through  the  call,  and  resists  the  Holy  Ghost  who  wishes 
to  be  efficacious  and  works  through  the  Word ;  as  Christ 
says :  'How  often  would  I  have  gathered  *  *  *  and  ye 
would  not,'  Matt.  23,  Z7"  (Book  of  Concord,  Miiller  713, 
Jacobs  656).  We  therefore  reject  and  condemn  with  all  our 
heart  the  opposing  Calvinistic  doctrine. 

Proposition  5. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  the  subjects  of  elec- 
tion or  predestination  are  only  the  truly  believing,  who  till 
the  end  or  at  the  end  of  their  life  truly  believe;  we  reject 
and  condemn,  therefore,  the  error  of  Huber,  that  election  is 
not  particular  but  general  and  includes  all  men. 

Proposition  6. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  the  divine  decree  of 
election  is  immutable,  and  that  therefore  no  elect  person 
can  become  reprobate  and  be  lost,  but  that  every  elect  per- 
son certainly  will  be  saved;  and  we  reject  and  condemn, 
therefore,  with  all  our  heart  the  opposing  error  of  Huber. 

Proposition  7. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  it  is  foolish  and 
perilous  to  the  soul  and  leads  either  to  carnal  security  or  to 
despair,  to  seek  by  means  of  inquiry  into  the  eternal  divine 
secret  decree  to  acquire  a  certain  persuasion  of  our  elec- 
tion or  of  our  final  salvation;  and  we  reject  and  condemn 
with  all  our  heart  the  opposing  doctrine  as  a  pernicious 
fanaticism. 

Proposition  8. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  a  believing  Christian 
should  seek  through  God's  revealed  will  to  become  certain 
of  his  election:  and  we  reject  and  condemn,  therefore,  with 


§    ^J,U        PROrOSITIONS    CONCF.RKING    ELECTION.  447 

all  our  heart  the  opposing  papal  error,  that  wc  can  become 
certain  of  our  election  or  salvation  only  through  a  new- 
immediate  revelation. 

Proposition  9. 

Wc  believe,  leach  and  confess:  1.  That  election  does 
not  consist  simply  in  the  fact  that  God  foreknew  who  would 
be  saved;  2.  that  election,  further,  is  not  simply  the  deter- 
mination of  God  to  redeem  and  save  men,  and  therefore 
a  general  election,  including  all  men;  3.  that  election  docs 
not  include  ihosi  who  believe  only  for  a  while  (Luke  8:13); 
4.  that  election  is  not  simply  a  decree  of  God  that  all  those 
who  believe  to  the  end  shall  be  saved;  we  reject  and  con- 
demn, therefore,  with  all  our  heart  the  opposing  errors  of 
Rationalists,  Huberists  and  Arminians. 

Proposition  10. 

Wc  believe,  teach  and  confess  tliat  the  cause  which 
moved  God  to  choose  the  elect  is  solely  His  grace  and  the 
merit  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  some  good  which  (iod  fore- 
saw in  the  elect,  not  even  the  faith  wliich  God  foresaw  in 
them;  and  wc  reject  and  condemn,  therefore,  the  opposing 
doctrines  of  Pelagians,  semi-pelagians  and  synergists  as 
blasphemous,  dreadful  errors,  which  overturn  the  Gospel 
and  with  it  the  entire  Christian  religion. 

Proposition.  11. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  election  is  not  sim- 
ply the  divine  prescience  or  foreknowledge  of  the  salvation 
of  the  elect,  but  that  it  is  also  a  cause  of  their  salvation  and 
of  all  that  belongs  to  it;  and  we  reject  and  condemn,  there- 
fore, with  all  our  heart  the  opposing  doctrines  of  the  .Ar- 
minians. Socinians  and  all  synergists. 

Proposition  12. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that,  with  respect  to  the 
mystery  of  election,  God  has  "still  kept  much  untold  and 
hidden,  and  reserved  solely  for  his  own  wisdom  and  knowl- 


448  APPENDICES.  §   37,111 

edge,"  which  no  man  can  or  should  search  out;  and  we  con- 
demn, therefore,  the  attempt  to  search  out  these  things 
which  have  not  been  revealed,  and  to  harmonize  with  our 
reason  wliat  appears  to  contradict  our  reason,  whether  this 
be  done  l)y  Calvinistic  or  by  Pelagian-syncrgistic  human 
doctrines. 

Proposition   13. 

We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that  it  is  not  only  not 
useless  and  still  less  dangerous,  but  necessary  and  salutary 
to  proclaim  publicly  to  the  Christian  people  the  mysterious 
doctrine  of  election,  in  so  far  as  it  is  clearly  revealed  in 
God's  Word;  and  we  do  not  agree  with  those,  therefore, 
who  think  that  this  doctrine  is  one  concerning  which  we 
should  keep  silence  or  which  we  should  discuss  only  among 
the  learned. 


III.    THE  TOLEDO  THESES. 

I.  THESIS. 

The  Church. 

The  Church,  in  tlie  proper  sense  of  the  term,  is  the  com- 
nmuion  of  true  btlievers  as  it  is  begotten  through  the  means 
of  grace  and  as  by  their  use  it  edifies  itself.  From  this  it 
follows : 

(a)  According  to  its  real  essence  the  Clnirch  is,  and 
remains  invisible  on   tin's  earth. 

(b)  Common  participation  in  the  means  of  grace  is  the 
necessary  form  of  the  Church's  appearance  and  the  infal- 
lible mark  of  its  existence ;  and  in  so  far  the  Church  is 
visible. 

II.  THESIS. 

The  Office  of  the  Ministry. 

(a)  The  rights  and  duties  of  the  spiritual  priesthood 
comprehend  not  only  the  general  command  and  call  that 
believers  reduce  to  practice  their  iellov,-ship  in  the  Gospel 
and  their  right  and  title  to  the  means  of  grace,  and  accord- 
ingly teach  and  admonish  one  another  in  every  manner,  but 


§    T,/,lll  TH1-:    TOLLDO    THKSES.  449 

also  that  without  special  call,  they  preach  the  Word  to 
heathens  and  unbilievcrs,  and  in  case  of  necessity,  admin- 
ister the  sacrament  of  baptism;  and  then  also,  that  they 
establish  the  ottUe  of  the  ministry,  inasmuch  as  this  office 
has  been  originally  and  immediately  given  l)y  Christ  to  the 
whole  Church. 

(b)  The  ortice  ul  the  ministry  rests  upon  a  special 
command  of  the  Lord,  valid  throughout  all  time,  and  con- 
sists in  the  right  and  power  conferred  i)y  special  call,  to 
administer  the  means  of  grace  publicly  and  by  commission 
of  the  congregation. 

(c)  The  call  (to  the  pastorate)  is  a  right  of  the  congre- 
gation within  whose  bounds  the  minister  is  to  discharge  the 
office.  Ordination  is  a  public  and  solemn  confirmation  of 
the  call;  and  is  ln:t  an  apostolic  churchly  custom  or  order. 

III.  THESIS. 
Attitude  to   the  Confessions. 

(a)  A  binding  subscription  to  the  Confessions  (of  the 
Church)  pertains  only  to  the  doctrines  of  the  faith  therein 
set  forth,  and  to  these  all  without  any  exception. 

(b)  Wliercas  the  <loctrinc  of  Sunday  as  taught  in  the 
Confessions  is  a  doctrine  revealed  in  God's  Word,  it  is  not 
to  be  excluded  from  the  body  of  obligatory  dogmas. 

IV.  THESIS. 
Open  Question. 

(a)  All  doctrines  revealed  clearly  and  plainly  in  the 
Word  of  God  are,  bj-  virtue  of  the  divine  authority  of  said 
Word,  dogmatically  fi.xed  as  true  and  binding  upon  the  con- 
science, whether  they  have  bnn  svmbolically  settled  as 
such  or  not. 

(b)  There  is  within  the  Ciiurcii  of  God  no  .luihoriiy 
whatever  of  departing  from  any  truths  clearly  revealed  by 
the  Scriptures,  be  their  contents  considered  fundamental  or 
non-fundamental,  important  or  apparently  unimportant. 

29 


450  APPENDICES.  §  37,111 

(c)  Full  agreement  in  all  articles  of  faith  constitutes 
the  irremissible  condition  of  church-fellowship.  Persistent 
error  in  an  article  of  faith  must  under  all  circumstances 
lead  to  separation. 

(d)  Perfect  agreement  in  all  non-fundamental  doc- 
trines, though  not  attainable  on  earth,  is,  nevertheless,  an 
end  desirable  and  one  we  should  labor  to  attain. 

(e)  Those  who  knowingly,  obdurately  and  persistently 
contradict  the  divine  Word  in  any  of  its  utterances  whatso- 
ever, thereby  overthrow  the  organic  foundation  (of  the 
faith),  and  are  therefore  to  be  excluded  from  church- 
fellowship. 

V.  THESIS. 

Chiliasm. 

(a)  Any  Chiliasm  which  conceives  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  to  be  something  external,  earthly  and  after  the  man- 
ner of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  which  teaches  a 
resurrection  of  all  believers  before  the  day  of  judgment 
shall  come,  is  a  doctrine  directly  contrary  to  the  analog>-  of 
faith,  and  is  to  be  rejected  as  such. 

(b)  The  belief  of  some,  to  wit,  that  the  reign  of  Christ 
and  His  saints  referred  to  in  Rev.  20,  is  an  event  belonging 
to  the  future,  as  also  that  the  resurrection  there  spoken  of 
is  to  be  understood  as  a  bodily  resurrection  of  some  be- 
lievers unto  life  everlasting,  is  an  opinion  which,  though 
not  incompatible  with  the  analogy  of  faith,  cannot  be 
strictly  proven  from  Scripture,  no  more  than  the  spiritual 
interpretation  of  said  passages  can  be  shown  to  be  the 
true  one. 

VI.  THESIS. 

Predestination  and  Conversion. 

(a)  The  error  of  Missouri  on  predestination  we  find  to 
consist  in  this,  that  thereby  the  universal  gracious  will  of 
God  and  His  decree  of  election  are  so  separated  as  to  ex- 
clude one  another,  and  that  thus  two  contradictory  wills 
are  affirmed  of  God.  This  error  renders  unsafe  the  founda- 
tion   upon    which    our    salvation    is    based,    and    stamps    as 


luiulanK-ntally   wrung  other  statc-nients   which   iiiiKht   othii- 
wise  ailmit  of  an  acccptal)le  interpretation. 

(,b>  Concerning  conversion,  drawn  into  controversy  in 
connection  with  the  doctrine  on  predestination,  we  confess 
that,  viewed  as  the  i)lacing  or  planting  of  a  new  spiritnal 
life,  conversion  does  not  depend  to  any  extent  whatsoever 
on  any  co-operation,  self-determination  or  good  conduct  on 
the  part  of  man,  nor  consist  therein,  but  that  it  is  wholly 
and  solely  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  working  the  same 
by  His  gracious  power  in  the  means  of  grace.  On  the  other 
hand,  however,  we  deny  that  the  Jloly  Ghost  works  con- 
version according  to  a  mere  pleasure  of  His  elective  will, 
or  despite  the  most  willful  resistance,  for  example,  in  the 
case  of  the  elect;  but  we  hold  that  by  such  stubborn  resist- 
ance both  conversion  and  eternal  election  are  hindered. 


IV.  STATEMENTS  RELATIVE  TO  THE  GEN- 
ERAL SYNOD'S  DOCTRINAL  BASIS. 

(Adopted  by  the  General  Synod  in  1909,  in  response  to  the  General 
Coiincirs  Theses  calling  attention  to  certain  apparent  ambiguities  in 
the  General  Synod's  position.  Only  the  most  important  pnragraphs 
are    here    K'von.) 

While  the  General  Synod's  formula  of  confessional 
subscription  mentions  only  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with- 
out specifying  the  terms,  "altered"  and  "unaltered,"  yet  it 
is  a  historical  fact  that  the  General  Synod  has  never  sul)- 
scribed  to  any  edition  of  the  confession  save  the  "unaltered" 
form,  and  does  not  now  subscribe  to  any  other  edition. 
This  is  known  as  the  Editio  Princcp*  of  15JO-31.  and  is  i)re- 
cisely  the  edition  from  which  a  translatir.n  was  prepared  by 
a  joint  committee  of  the  General  Synod,  the  Ticncral  Coun- 
cil, the  United  Synod  of  the  Sotiih.  and  the  Joint  Synod  of 
Ohio,  "as  a  common  Standard  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  English."  (See  page  299  of  the  General  Synod's  Book  of 
Worship  with  Hymns  and  Tunes.)  Therefore,  the  edition 
of  the  .'\ugsburg  Confession  received  by  the  General  Synod 


452  THK    RICil.UONl)    RESOLUTIONS.  §    3/, IV 

is  identical  with  that  received  by  the  General  Council.  (Alin- 
utes  of  the  General  Synod  for  1909,  pp.  56,  57.) 

When  the  General  Sj'nod  says,  in  her  formula  of  con- 
fessional subscription,  that  she  accepts  "the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Divine  Word  and  of  the  faith  of  our  Church  founded 
upon  that  Word,"  she  means  precisely  what  she  says, 
namely,  that  the  fundS^mental  doctrines  of  God's  Word  are 
correctly  set  forth  in  the  Confession.  She  does  not  mean 
that  some  of  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Confession  are 
non-fundamental,  and  therefore  may  be  accepted  or  re- 
jected; she  means  that  they  are  all  fundamental,  and  their 
exhibition  in  the  Confession  is  to  be  accepted  by  those  who 
accept  the  Confession.  _  _  _  The  General  Synod  therefore 
asserts  that  the  chief  or  foundation  doctrines  of  God's  Word 
are  set  forth  in  the  Confession,  and  that  they  are  correctly 
set  forth  therein.     (Minutes,  ut  supra,  p.  57.) 

Resolved,  That,  inasmuch  as  the  Augsburg  Confession 
is  the  original,  generic  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
accepted  by  Luther  and  his  coadjutors,  and  subscribed  to  by 
all  Lutheran  bodies  the  world  over,  we  therefore  deem  it  an 
adequate  and  sufficient  standard  of  Lutheran  doctrine.  In 
making  this  statement,  however,  the  General  Synod  in  no- 
wise means  to  impl}^  that  she  ignores,  rejects,  repudiates 
or  antagonizes  the  Secondary  Symbols  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, nor  forbids  any  of  her  members  from  accepting  or 
teaching  all  of  them,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Lutheran 
regulative  principle  of  justifying  faith.  On  the  contrary, 
she  holds  those  Symbols  in  high  esteem,  regards  them  as  a 
most  valuable  body  of  Lutheran  belief,  explaining  and  un- 
folding the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  she 
hereby  recommends  that  they  be  diligently  and  faithfully 
studied  bv  our  ministers  and  laymen.  (Minutes,  ut  supra, 
p.  60.) 

Whereas,  The  phrase,  "the  Word  of  God  as  contained 
in  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments," occurs  in  our  formula  of  confessional  subscription  ; 
and, 

Whereas,  When  our  fathers  framed  this  language,  the 
theological    distinction    between    the    two    statements,   "The 


§  jiy,l\  iiii;  uu)i.M(3NiJ  kksoi.i.tkjns.  45,^ 

Liiljle  is  tlic  WorU  of  God,"  and,  "llic  liihle  contains  the 
Word  of  God,"  had  not  yet  been  made,  or  at  least  was  not 
yet  in  vogue,  and  therefore  there  could  have  been  no  inten- 
tion on  their  part  of  corniriilting  the  General  Synod  to  lax 
or  heretical  views  of  the  inspiration  of  tin.-  Sacred  Scrijj- 
tures,  but,  on  the  contrary-,  a  sincere  desire  to  plant  her 
lirmly  on  the  true  doctrine  of  Biblical  inspiration;  and, 

Whereas,  I  lio  General  Synod  has  ever  occupietl  tiie  same 
position  with  reference  to  the  true  and  complete  inspiration 
of  the  Canonical  Scriptures;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  we  herewith  declare  our  adiierencc  to 
the  statement,  "The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,"  and  reject 
the  error  implied  in  the  statement,  "The  Bible  contains  the 
Word  of  God."     (Minutes,  ut  supra,  pp.  60,  61.) 

Note.  If  the  reader  will  now  turn  to  page  184  of  this 
book,  and  read  the  paragraphs  headed  "Article  II.  Doctrinal 
Basis"  and  "Article  III.  The  Secondary  Symbols,"  he  will 
see  that  the  General  Synod  has  happily  eliminated  all  am- 
biguity from  her  confessional  basis  and  statements.  These 
paragraphs  give  the  present  confessional  status  of  the  Gen- 
eral Synod.     (§§  11,  1,  f:  35.  p.  435  sq.) 


PERSONAL  INDEX. 


Acrelius,   20,   3J. 

Aikens,    C.    T.,    19-    sq. 

Allwardt.    H.    A..    278,    302-304,    361, 

373. 
Altman,    F.   D.,    192. 
.Vnilcrson,    Paul,   389   tq. 
Anderson,    R.,  416. 
Aiuircen,  C.   A.,  234,  241. 
.^iiarewsen,   Ole,   389-391. 
.•\nne.    Queen,    41. 
-Vnstadt,    P.,    90    sq..    101.    126,    130, 

147,    177. 
.\rcnsius,   25. 

.\sperhcim,   O.    D.,   302,   396. 
.\urcn,    29. 

Dachmann,    K.    F.,  244. 
R.iclimann,  John,   209,   212. 
r.adinc,  J.    F.,  22.i    sq.,  322.  325,   331 

sq. 
Haifrlein,    269,    368. 
Hancrott,   48. 
Bassler,   G.,  215,  236. 
Uaurr,    Fr.,   365,   371    sq.,   378. 
Baughcr    (Bager),   68,    123,    149,   200. 
n:ium,    174. 
Raumstark.   310. 
Bauslin.    D.    H..    109,    113,    149.    192, 

203. 
Rente,    F.,   311. 
Ben  re,   <  .    T.,   240.   242,    248. 
Bergh,  J.   A.,   407. 
Bergh,  O.   A.,  394. 
Berpsland,    H.    H.,   393    sq. 
Berkeineicr,   G.    C,   227,  243. 
Bcrkemeier,   W..   244. 
Berkenmeyer,   \V.   C,   38,   43-46.   59. 

69.    77.    82.    105.    42.'. 
Rcsser.    144. 
Beyer.  289. 

Biedermann,    R.    I)..   311. 
Bittle,   D.    F.,  210. 
Bjoerk,    29.    33.    74. 


Bjornason,   J..    421. 

Bockmann.    hi.   O.,   400. 

Boeckler.    O.,    311. 

Boehme.    56,   64. 

Boltzius,   50. 

Brandt,    .\.    O.,    390,   395. 

Brandt,    O.    E.,    397. 

Brauer,   297. 

Breckinridge,   S.    F..    149. 

Brengcr,   258. 

Brobst,   152   sq.,    174. 

Rrocn,    E.    M.,   403. 

Brohin.   258,   271,   383. 

Brown,   J.   A.,    127    sq.,    132    sq.,    147. 

149,    153,    158.    164,    166,    168,    174. 

199. 
Bruce.    G.    .\I..   394. 
Bninnlioltz,   P..   68   sq..   414. 
Buchler.    143. 
Biicnt;er.    271. 
Buerger.   262. 
Burger.   267.   349. 
Buschbaucr.   H..  388. 
Butler.   J.    G.,    182   sq. 

Calovius.  306. 

Campanius.    J..    27.    29. 

Carlson.    E..   233. 

Carroll,    438. 

Caspari.    3S7. 

Charles    XI..    29. 

Christian!.   367. 

Clausen.  C.  L..  389  sq.,  395,  398  »q.. 

408,   415. 
Cloetcr.   362. 
Clutr.    J.    .v.    183.    191. 
Conrad.   F.   W..   198. 
Conrad.    L.   W..   12^. 
Coover.  M..  191. 
Cordes.   A..   244. 
Craemer.    F.    A..    260.    n.    311.    315. 

338.   391. 
Dahlstroni.   H.   .1..   418. 


(455) 


456 


PERSONAL    INDEX. 


Dau,   A.,   416  sq. 

Dau,   W.   H.   T.,  311. 

Day,   David,   194   sq. 

Dedekind,    M.,    322. 

Deindoeri'er,    J.,    269,    274,    338,    363, 

367,    373,   375,    379,    427. 
Deinzer,   J.,   372. 
Delitzsch,    Franz,    258. 
Demme,  C  R,  146,  ISO,  250,  348  sq., 

360. 
DieckhoflF,    304. 
Diefl'enbacli,   379. 
DichI,   C.    F.,    92,   236. 
Dictric,   J.   \V.   A.,   390. 
Dietrichsen,   C.   F.,  390,  395. 
Dietrichscn,   J.   C.    W.,   389. 
Doerfler,    365,    384. 
Dracli,    G.,   246. 
Dreher,   J.    D.,    210. 
Drisius,    23. 
Dumser,   338. 
Dylander,  J.,   30,   32. 
Dysinger,    W.,    192. 

Earhardt,    D.,   171. 

Eberhardt,    C.    L.,    M9. 

Eggen,   J.    M.,    398. 

Ehrenstroeni,  381   sq. 

Eiclseii,    E.,   388-.5'.'3,    407-409. 

Eikhoff,    A.,  337. 

Endress,   C,   80. 

Engel,   O.,  318. 

Engelder,  Thco.,  311. 

Ernst    (sent    by    Loehe),    267,    272, 

349 
Ernst,    F.    .\.,   319,   330. 
Ernst,   H.,  278,  304,  3.S8. 
Esbjorn,    L.    P.,    136    sq.,     139,    232 

sq.,    235,    391. 
Everest,    K.   A.,   319. 
Evjen,   25. 

Fabricius,  J.,  25,  28,  33,   423. 

Faclitmann,   G.,  330. 

Falckncr,    Daniel,    35    sq.,    38    sq., 

44    sq.,    5.^. 
Falckncr,    Justus,    26,    33,    56    sq., 

39  sq.,  44,  53. 
Finney,    109   sq. 
Fliedner,  249. 
P"orster,   G.,  347. 


Francke,    A.    H.,   37,   39,    54,   56, 

64,   68,   258. 
Francke,   G.  A.,  54  sq. 
Frank,    351. 
Franklin,   Benj.,    81. 
Fresenius,  J.   P.,   53. 
Frey,  J.,  240,  276. 
Fricke,  C,  319. 
Fries,    J.,    414. 
Fritschel,    Geo.    J.,     169,    176, 

295,   306,   325,   339,   362,    376-3; 
Fritschel,     Gottfried,     71,     73, 

215,    219,    222,    262,    267,    269, 

300    sq.,    325,    351,    365,    369, 

378. 
Fritschel,    Gottlob,    379. 
Fritschel,   H.,   379. 
Fritschel,   John,  378. 
Fritschel,    Max,    376,   378 
I'ritschel,    Sigmund,    301,    334, 

368,    371-384. 
Fnerbringer,    258,    271,    275,    311, 

sq. 


61, 


279, 

'8. 
143, 
296, 

371- 


363- 
314 


Gerberding,    111,   241,   253,  3.«. 

Gerhard,   John,   298   sq.,   405. 

Germann,  W.,  54,  62,  67. 

Gerok,   68 

Giese,   11.   E.,   242. 

Gjcldaker,    B.,   398   sq. 

Godel,    O.,   2'14. 

Gossner,   333. 

Gotwald.    F.   G.,   94,   97,   102. 

Gotv/ald,    L.    A.,    81,    131,    149,    198, 

203. 
Grabau,    275,    279-288,    292,    319,    36^ 

sq.,  378,  381-384,  426,   434. 
Graebner,   A.   L.,   40,  63,   71,   74,   107 

sq.,    304,    311,    315    sq. 
Graebner,    Pastor,    269. 
Graebner,  Theo.,  311. 
Greenwald,   129. 
Greever,   ^^■.   H.,   213. 
Gronau,    .^0. 
Gross,    E..    .311, 

Grosse,    J..    116,    226,    288,    344    sq. 
Grossmann,    269,   274,   289,   325,   363- 

368,   373,   376-379. 
Grove-Rasmussen,   A.   C.   L.,  416. 
Grundtvig,    410,   416-419. 


i-i;kso.n'ai.  iNjii:\. 


457 


C'.ucnther,   M..  310. 
Ciucrickc,    UT,    1«.   296,   367. 
(Juktavu*   Adolphus,    26    sq. 
Ciutwasscr,   J.    E.,  2-». 

Haus.  J.  A.   W..  242,   254. 

llacsbart,    263-267. 

Haniuia,    M.   W.,  202. 

Ilandschuh,  68    sq. 

Hansen,    O.,    394. 

Hansen.    F.    L.    C.    41S. 

Hardcrs,   G.,   3J1. 

Harkey,   S.   \V.,   1J3,   120,   136. 

Harless,    117,  36:. 

Harms,    Claus,    144. 

Harms,    H.    \V.,   307. 

Harms,    Ludwig,    144. 

Harms,  T.,   271.   297   sq. 

Harnack,   378. 

Harpster,    246. 

Hartwick,  81. 

Hartwig.    68    sq. 

Hasselquist.    137,    139,   233-236 

Hatlestad,  O.  J.,  398   .sq. 

Hattstacdt,   338. 

Hauck,   83,   251,   273. 

Hauge,    H.    N.,  386  sq..   407. 

Hay,   C.   A.,   149.   174. 

Hazelius,    E.,    81,   94.    96,   210.   229. 

Heckert,   C.    C...    192   sq. 

neinzclni.inn,   68. 

Hclmuth,  68,  75.  80,  S2,  90,  95. 

Hengstcnbcrg,    117. 

Henkel.    Daniel,   79. 

Henkel,    David.    211    sq. 

Henkel    Family,    117,    211    sq. 

Henkel,    Cerhard,   38,    5.-<,   211,  347. 

Henkel,    l':iul,  78   sq..  90.   211,  347. 

Henkel,    Philip,   79,   211. 

Henninghaiisen.    27. 

Heyer.    C.    G.,    194. 

Heyer,   C.    F.,   245,   i3i. 

Hcyer,   J.    I".,  96. 

Hilprecht.  240. 

Hochstetter.   275.    338.    366,    368,   384. 

Hoefling.   294. 

Hocnecke.    287,    323.129,   ii2. 

Hoermann,    A.,    329. 

Hoffmann.    294,   378,    389. 

Hoover.   H.    D..    193. 


Horn,    E.    T.,   253. 
Hoynic.    C...    411. 
Muber,    F..    3^0. 
Hudson.    Henry.   21. 
lluegeli.   301,   36<i. 
Humboldt,    212. 
Hove,   E..  397. 

Irving,    W'asli..    2.^. 

Jacobs,  17,  63,  70.  72  sq..  W  sq., 
100  sq.,  103  sq..  117  sq.,  129,  13^, 
143,  164,  169,  190,  215.  223.  24fj, 
254,   427. 

James   H.,   25. 

Jensen,    H.    1'.,    41K. 

Jensen,    K.asmus,   27. 

jcrsild,    418. 

Johnsen,   E.    Kr.,  400. 

Joqucs,    22. 

Josenhans,    .3.^9. 

Kapp,    Fr..   52. 

Keller,    Ucnj..   81. 

Keller,    Exra,  98 

Ketner.    O.   J.    M.,   42,   44. 

Keyser,    I..    .S..    183,    192. 

Kieft,   W..  22. 

Kildahl,   400. 

Kindermanii,    3^1-383. 

Kirscli,   J.    A.    VV.,   242. 

Kiicfoili,    117.   26''. 

Klindworili.  371-373,  376. 

Klingniann.    .St.,   226,   339. 

Klotsche,   E.,  l'>3. 

Knoll.   44    sq. 

Kochcrthal.  J.,  38,  41  sq..  41.  57. 

Kock.   68. 

Kochlcr,  320,  329. 

Kocsler,    35-37. 

Kocstcring.   297. 

Koren.   390,    410. 

Kraeling.   212. 

Krausc,   111.  ii3,  390,  395,  415. 

Kraushaar.    318,   370.    423-430. 

Kraiiss,    E.    .\.    \V.,    311. 

Krauss.    E.    F.,  68,  241. 

Krauth.    Jr..    79.    91.    118    »q.,     126. 

128-131.     135.     138.     145     »q..     148, 

151,    153.    156,    169    sq.,    174.    179. 

205.  214   sq..  222,  224-226,  249  sq., 

434. 


45S 


PERSONAL    INDEX. 


KraiUh,    Sr.,    94    sq.,    100,    102,    115, 

lir,   119   sq.,   127   sq.,   130   sq.,   148 

sq.,   I.i5   sq.,    169   sq. 
Krogstriip,    -114. 
Krotel,    145,   147,   226,   240,  250. 
Krueger,  J.   F.,   192. 
KruK,  68. 
Krummacher,   321. 
Kiigler,    Dr.   Anna,    194. 
Kuhlmann,    191. 
Kuhn,  336. 

Kunze,   75,   77   sq.,   80,   83. 
Kunzmann,    246. 
Kurtz,   B.,   94,   97,    110,    115,   119,    123 

sq.,    126,    128,    130,    132    sq.,    138, 

192,    259. 
Kurtz,  D.,  79. 
Kurtz,   J.    X.,   66-6S,   130. 

Langgaard,   414. 

Lankenau,   243. 

Larimer,   192. 

Larson,   396,  412. 

Laury,  241. 

Lederer,   340. 

Lehmann,   349,   351,   359. 

Lenski,   357. 

Leopold   Anton,   46 

Leps,   414 

Leutbecker,   64   sq. 

Linke,  C,  241. 

Linker,  137. 

Lochmann.  80,  94,  130. 

Lcchner,   271    sq.,   338. 

Lock,    Lars,    28. 

Loehe,  117,  144,  253,  266-271,  284, 
286,  292-294,  315,  338,  344,  349, 
353,  362  sq.,  375,  378-380,  389, 
395,   426,   434. 

Louis   XVI.,   40   sq. 

Loy,   214,   303   sq.,   349,   351,   360,   434. 

Lundeberg,    403. 

Luthardt,  367. 

Manhart,    192. 

Mann,    67,    71    sq.,    74,    118,    120-122, 
127,    145,    147,    226,    240,    249,    251. 
Martin,   327,  329. 
-Mayer,  338. 
Mechling,  231. 


Mees,  O.,  358. 

Mees,   Th.,  307,  357. 

Megapolensis,   23. 

Meland,  393. 

Metzger,   311. 

Meyer,  329. 

Mjjebroff,   334. 

Minewit,    P.,   21.  26. 

Moldehnke,    325.   328-330,    333. 

Morehead,   210. 

Morris,  94,  97,  105  sq.,  115.  123,  149, 
198,   205,   267. 

Muhlenberg,    F.    A.,   242. 

Muhlenberg,    F.    A.    C,   77. 

Muhlenberg,    H.    A.,    81. 

.Muhlenberg,  H.  M.,  30,  i3,  36,  38, 
44,  46,  54-76.  82  sq.,  85,  87,  99, 
105,  119,  130,  161,  185  sq.,  240, 
264    sq.,    423-428,    430-432. 

Muhlenberg,    Peter,   75,   82. 

Muehlhaeuser,  320   sq.,   331. 

Muenkel,  289,   295.   367    sq. 

Xettleton,   109. 

Neve,   J.    L.,   81,    121,    156,    175,    185, 

192,   304. 
Xevin,  110,   118,   144. 
Xicolls,   25. 

Xicum,    26,    139,    173,   242,   319,    335. 
Nielsen,   416. 
Xikander,   422. 
Xorelius,  227. 
Notz,  330. 
Xyberg,   69. 

Ochsenford,    158,    164,    166,    190,   214, 

335,  340. 
Offermann,   240. 
Oftedal,  400,   402. 
Oglethorpe,   49. 
Ort,   149,   202. 
Ott,    171. 

Ottesen,   390,   395. 
Pardieck,   311. 
Passavant,    111,    129,    145,    153,    166, 

169,    180,    231,    241,    243,    249,    333, 

379. 
Pastorius,  34  sq.,  37. 
Paulsen,  247. 
Peary,  R.  B.,  192  sq. 


PERSONAL    INUHX. 


459 


Penn,  William.  34  sy.,  39.  I 

Peter   and    Schmidt.   90.   99,  353   sq. 

IVtcrs.    73.  ' 

I'feiflfer,   357. 

PiepiT,   A.,  288,   329. 

Picpcr.    F.,   305    sq.,    311,   316,    356. 

Pirper.    R.,    311. 

Planck,    95. 

Pohlmann,    115.    123,    140,    149. 

Prcus,  A.   E.,  390,  395. 

Prcus,   E.,  310. 

Prcus.    H.    A..    390.    395,    409    sq. 

Prochl.    W..    376.    379. 

nuiliiian,    78,    83,    lOl.    177.    212.    229. 

Kamer.    248. 

Ramsey.   241. 

Rasmusscn.    391    sq.,    409. 

Kathlcf.   36. 

Raumer.   266. 

Kccd,  240. 

Rcinkc,    312. 

Keu,    376.    380    sq. 

Reynol.l.s   120,   128.   136. 

Richard,   200. 

Richter,    A.,   242. 

Richter,    F.,  373,  380. 

Riesdorf,   40. 

Rochm,   373. 

Roesercr.  334. 

Rohr,    H.    von,   381,   384. 

Rohrlack,    294. 

Rudelbach.    117.    144,   263.   296. 

Rudman,    26.    29.    33,    39.    74. 

Sachse,  34.  36. 

Sadler.   242. 

Sandcl,  33.  38.   74. 

Sander.  321. 

Sandin,    33.    69. 

Sartortits,   117. 

Schaff.    118.    24'>,   380. 

SchacflFer.    C.     P..    97,    145.    147    sq.. 

LV),    240,    26S.    349. 
Schaeffcr.    C.    W..   67,    147,    150,    153. 

169,    174.    226.    240. 
Schaeffer.  D.   F..  79  sq..  9«  sq..  IV?. 
Schaitberger.   47. 


Schaller.   (i.,  288. 

Schaller.   J..   329. 

Schaum.   68. 

Schcibcl.   117,   144.  257. 

Schiefcrdfckcr,  371. 

Schlatter,   73. 

.Schlcidorn,  68. 

Schmauk,   27,   34.   36.   54.   64.   67.   100. 

227,   240.    247.   2.S4. 
Sclimi.l,    F.,   337,   339. 
Schmiilt,  68,  82,  90,   123. 
.Schmidt,    E.   W.,   394. 
Schmidt.    F.    A..    278,    298,    302-304, 

310.  327.  351.  358,  371  sq.,  396  sq.. 

400.  412. 
.Schmidt.    I".   W.,  320. 
Schmitlt.    11.    r.,   245. 
Schmidt,   n.   J..    115.   127. 
Sclimidt,   J.    A..   301. 
Schmidt.   \V..  348. 
Schmuckcr.    B.    M.,   67,   92.    145.    152 

.sq.,   249. 
Sclimucker,    J.    (:,    89    sq.,    96,    129. 

198. 
Schmuckcr,     S.     S.,    81,    'A"^.    101. 

114     sq.,     119,     121-130,     133,     147, 

152,    158,    160,    169,    177,    205,    226, 

249. 
.Schobcr,   89. 
Schodde,   357,   362. 
Schrenk.  68. 
Schubert.    187. 
Schui-ttc,  362. 
.'^chulze.   53.    6R. 
Schwartz.   Joel.    165. 
Scriver.    405. 
Secbach.    320. 
Seip.   242. 

Seiss.    153    sq..    1.S7.    :2i.   226.    250. 
Scmlcr,  &3. 
Scveringhaus.   173.    17.5.   18V.   192.   X)\ 

sq. 
ShecleiRh.    162. 
Sherman.  212. 

Sicker.  275.  32K  3y).  334-336. 
Sicvers.   269.   271. 
Sihlcr.    218.     26R.     270  272.     314.     340. 

368,   391. 
Simonsen.    418. 
SinHm.T««er,   191.   2a'    »q. 


460 


PERSONAL    INDEX. 


Loholm,  418. 
Solle,  414. 
Soramer,  46. 
Spangenberg,   65. 
Spaeth,  8,3,  91,  'Jl 


100  sq.,  115,  120- 


128,    UZ,    K;-161,    169,    171,    226, 

240,  213,  249,  251,  273. 
Spener,   56,   61,    188,  369. 
Spieker,    240. 
Spittler,   334. 
Sprecher,   98,    119,    124-130,    156,    160, 

168   sq.,   184. 
Stahl,  144. 
Stauch,  347. 
Steiner,   7i. 
Steinhaeuser,    242. 
Stellliorn,  278   sq.,  301-304,  330,   351, 

i%  sq.,  360. 
Stephaii,     94,    97,    257-263,    275,    283, 

301. 
Stoeckliardt,   288,   310,   316. 
Stoever,    36,    38,    53    sq.,    64-66,    69, 

424. 
Stohlnianu,   349 
Stole,   400. 

Stork,  A.   G.,  78,  89,   149. 
Stork,   C.  A.,  200. 
Strasen,  302. 
Streckfuss,  311. 
.Slreissguth,  327. 
Strobe!,  49. 
Stub,  11.   A.,  390,  m. 
.Stub,   H.   G.,   396  sq.,   413. 
Stump,   241. 

Stuyvesant,  23  sq.,  28. 
Svcrdrup,  400-402,  411. 
Swensson,   231. 

Thergrimso,  421. 
Thicle,  330. 
Tholuck,   264,   332. 
Thomasius,  .19,   117,  378. 
Thorn  sen,  416. 
Thorlackson,  421. 
Torkillus,  27. 
Trabert,  333. 
Trautmann,  338. 
Travers.    191,   193. 
Tressel,   297. 
TressJcr,   192. 


Urlspt-rgcr,    48    sq. 
Usselink,   26. 

Valentine,   191,    199   sq.,   204. 
Van    Alstine,   319. 
\"ig,    413,    418    sq. 
\oigt,   49,   68,   210,   212. 
\'orberg,    329. 

Wagner,    66,    69. 

Waldenstroem,  233  sq. 

Walther,  117,  119,  218,  257,  263, 
270-277,  281-317,  328,  350-372,  383, 
396    sq.,    410,    426-429,   434. 

Wangemann,    144. 

Wee,  394. 

Weenass,  401 

Weidner,  241,  251. 

Weiumann,   320. 

Weiser,   Jr.,   44,    64    sq. 

Weiser,   Sr.,   44. 

Wellhausen,    193. 

Wenner,   203. 

Wesel,   311. 

Wesley,    Ch.,    49,    103,    111,    119. 

Weswig,  400. 

Weygardt,  68. 

Whitefield,  72. 

Wichern,   323. 

Wier,  333. 

Wieting,   139. 

Winkler,  267   sq.,  349,  359. 

Wischan,   67,  247. 

Wold,  395. 

Wolf,   E.  J.,   17,   149,   199,   319. 

Wolff,  Magister,  45. 

Wrangel,  30,   33,   70,   74,   424. 

Wrede,   320. 

Wupper,   193. 

Wyneken,  117 
364,   434. 


264-272,  314   sq.,   362 


Yarger,  195. 
Yeager,  96. 
Ylvisaker,  397. 

Zeilingcr,  376. 
Ziegenhagen,    54    sq. 
Ziegler,   192. 
Zinzendorf,    52    sq., 
65-69,    73,    431. 


62,    64,   68. 


55-57,    61     sq. 


TOPICAL  INDEX. 


Absolution.  lAt,  179.  385,  403. 

"Abstract,"    12-I1J7. 

Aildison,    Tcaclicrs'     Scmin.iry    in, 

2ri,   310. 
.Viliaphora,   300. 
Africa.   397,   408,   416. 
Aged,   Homes  (or  the,   1?^  243,  313, 

377,   395,  397,   401,   420   sq. 
.•\kron,   219,   222   sq. 
Akron    Resolution,   187,   339. 
Alaska.    397. 

Alh.-iny,   21.   24    sq..   39.    7S. 
.-Mleijhcny   Synod.  92. 
Allentown  C!\urch  Case,  168,  174. 
Allcntown,     College     in,     228,     242, 

253   sq. 
Altar- Fellowship,    105.    186,   218.   222 

sq.,    327.    .135.    344,    350. 
"Altes   und   Ncucs,"  302,   361,  413.       ! 
American     Lutlieranisra,     107,     114,    j 

118-133,  138.  H9,  151,  169-172.  178,    I 

181,    184    sq.,    249,    286,    349,    352,    j 

431,  433. 
American     Lutheran     Survey,     121,    i 

213.  1 

Amsterdam,   21,   23    sq.,   29.   45.   424.    j 
Analogy   of   Faith,   291,   355.   369.  | 

Andover,    232,    235,    243,    398    sq.  | 

Antichrist,    2S4.    29?-:W.    357,    369.       | 
.•\nxious   Bench.    110,   118. 
.\pportionment   System,   196. 
Argentine,   27S. 
.Arminianism,    110. 

.\tchison   Convention,   1S4.  I 

.\tcIiison.     Seminary     in,     175.     192,    | 

2r>2. 
AuKsliurg  Confession,  2^.  35,  74,  79. 

90.   110.   120.   122.   125.   127.   130-149. 

l."^,    170-187.    201.    ;fW,    214    sq.. 

225,    249,    263,    280    sq.,    291     sej., 

326,  334,  367,   384    sq.,   436   sq. 
AuRsburg     Seminary,     400-402.     411 

5q..    418. 


.Xugsburg  Synod,  341. 
August.ina    College,    236. 
.\ugustana   Seminary,  234,   241,  252. 
.\ugustana    Synod    (SkandinavianK 

389,   391,   398    sq.,    409,    412. 
August.nna    Synod     (Swedish),     136 

sq.,     218,     222,     226-228,     232-2.'8. 

244,   422. 
Australia,  278. 

Baden,  41. 

Baptism,   23,   32,  .i9.   SO,   63,   122   sq.. 

US,   179,   197.   265.   282.   417. 
Baptists.    55,    65,    415. 
Barmen    Mission,   320. 
Bavaria,    366. 

Berlin,  212,  314.  321-324.  329,  321   sq. 
Bethany    College,    23t,    243. 
B'.-thleheni,  56. 
Blair,   Seminary    in,   418   sq. 
Brazil,   278,   311. 
Breklum.    193,    2m1. 
Breslau   .Synod,   382. 
Brobst's    Theol.     Monatshefte,     73, 

129,   147,  295,  .TOl.   368,  370,   378. 
Buffalo,   IfZ   sq..   2-13.   313,   381-383. 
Buffalo,    Seminary    in,    384. 
Buffalo    Synod,    117.    134,    275,    279. 

282,    294,    319,    .165    sq.,    378,    381- 

385,  426,  429,  434,   436. 

C.-xlifornia  Synod.  175. 
Calvinism,    21,    2:^.    307,    328,    405. 
Canada    Synod,    1''2,    214,    218,    223. 

226,  228,  236,  2«1,  359. 
Capital     Univerfity.     128,     314.     357 

sq.,   .361    sq. 
Carthage    Collegr.    19.;,   200. 
Catechism.  27.  29.   50,  55.  63.  6.\  74, 

84.    111.    13«.    143,    145,    1.54.    170. 

178,    184,    190.    217.    259,    305,    323. 

346.  407. 
Catskill    Mountains.    42. 


f<J61) 


462 


TOPICAL    INDEX. 


Central     Canada    Synod,     228,    237, 

239. 
Central   Illinois    Synod,    173. 
Central   Pennsylvania  Synod,  93. 
Charleston,  49,   51,  62,  124,  212,  253. 
Chicago,    137,   201,   220,   233,   241,   243, 

270,    276,    303,    312    sq.,    327,    346, 

377,   388,   401,   407,    414,   420. 
Chicago,    Pastoral    Conference    in, 

327,    361. 
Chicago,    Seminary    in.   201    sq.,   233 

sq.,   238,    241,   249,    252   sq.,    421. 
Chicago    Synod,    79,    228,    232,    237, 

241. 
Children's  Companion,  394. 
Children's    Friend,   394. 
Chiliasm,   218,   224   sq.,   251,    284,   294 

sq.,    327,    350,    357,    365,    369. 
China,   394,  397,   401-403. 
("hristiania    University,    409-412. 
Church    Discipline,   219,   224,    344. 
Church,    Doctrine    of    the,    280-284, 

292,    385    sq. 
Church     Extension,     195,    200,    211, 

247. 
Church    Fellowship,     106,    290,    293, 

297,    299,    435. 
Church   Papers,  94-97,   102,    117,   128 

sq.,    263,    313,    377,    401,    412,    417 

sq. 
Church    Polity,     169,     189,    208,    215, 

221,   227,    343. 
Church,    Koman    Catliolic,    47,    122, 

179,  211,   293,    310,   415. 
Clinton,   376,   380. 

Colloquium   in   La   Cro.sse,   325,   336. 
Colloquium    in    Michigan   City,   351, 

357,   373. 
Colloquium    in    Milwaukee,    289-291, 

295,    326,    355,    368. 
Colloquium    in   Toledo,  3.51,   357. 
Colloquium    between    BufTalo    and 

Missouri,   38-1. 
Columbia  College,  78,  210,  400. 
Columbia  Seminary,   49,  213. 
Columbus.     Seminary     in,     1.50,    267 

sq.,    348,    351,    357-361. 
Common     Service     (see     Liturgy), 

180,  203,    209,   250. 


Concord,     Book    of,     117,     134,     170, 

181,    208,   211,    229,    385. 
Concord,    Formula    of,    74,    134,    149, 

184,    200,    217,    306,    336,    404    sq., 

427,    435. 
Concordia    Seminary     (St.     Louis), 

263,   300    sq.,   310,   313,   412   sq. 
Conferences,      Intersynodical,     305, 

3.^6    sq. 
Confession,    7.!.   84   sq.,   96,    122,    144, 

216,    221,    22\    sq.,    284,    295    sq.. 

315. 
Confessions,    Attitude    toward,    96. 

103,    117,    129,    145,   148,    156,    168- 

134,  219,     273,    384-290,    321,    334, 
365. 

Congregationalists,    S3. 
Conover,   College  in,  310. 
Constitution,     Congregational,     70, 

76,    130,   364,   423-427. 
Constitution,  Synodical,  70,  89,  130, 

162,    176    sq.,    270,    321,    327,    385, 

392,    399,    428-430. 
Con  substantiation,    179. 
Conversion,    107,    109    sq.,    284,    305- 

309,    345,    354-357,    379,    386,    403, 

406. 

Danes,    24,    137,   386,   408,   438. 
Danish    Lutherans,    24,    413-420. 
Davenport  Theses,  291,  370  sq.,  440- 

444. 
Deaconess     Institutions,     196,     231, 

235,    243,    249,    251,    401    sq. 
Deaf   and   Dumb,   Mission   for    the, 

312   sq. 
Decorah,    College    in,   397,    410,   413. 
Decorah,    Seminary   in,    396. 
Definite     Platform,     115,     122,     126- 

135,  146.    149,    171,    180-184,    433. 
Delaware,  27,  29,  31. 
Delegates,   Exchange  of,   185. 
Denmark,    98,    388,    407    sq.,    414-420. 
Dcs   Moines,  182   sq. 

Detroit,    305,    365    sq.,    378. 
"Deutsche      Kirchenfreund,"      113- 

122,    249. 
"Deutsche    Lutheraner,"    227. 
D;irpat,  289,  325,  366-368. 
Dort   Confession,  23. 


lol'li.  M.    iNi»r.x. 


V>^ 


Uiiliuqur.  Seminary   in,  36J-.V1,  3',i, 

3S0. 
iMiih    Lutherans.   11.   21-25.   Zi.   20, 

jj.  J*),  45.   59.  69,  71,  77.  AM.  42.^ 

llarUown,   S3. 

K.i&loii.    162.    164.    168. 

K.iit    Dhio    Synoil,    92.    126.    43.1. 

I^ait    IVnnsylvani.i    Synod.   92,    127, 

142.    1S3    sq. 
l.tieiiczrr.   19,  49   sq.,   62,  424. 
Kluiation.    Board    of,    94,    193. 
Kimbeck,   61,   71. 
KIcction.    104.  256,   271,   277    sq..   2S4, 

287.   .WO  310.  328.   3i6-34\   351-361. 

372,   397.    403-407.    413,    445 -448. 
Flection.       Thirteen       Propositions 

concerning,    445-448. 
Kmigraiit    Missions,   Lutheran,  244, 

312,    398,    419. 
Kn:4l,-ind,   25,   37,   41    sq.,    44,    47    sq., 

57,    74,    83,    315. 
Kphrata,    55,   65. 
Lpiscopalians,    19.   30    sq.,   36.    72-74, 

8.^  85.  100.   105,  245,  293. 
Error   of  Missouri,   yi7. 
I>thoni.in3,   312. 
Kv.    Lutheran,    129. 
Kv.    Luth.    IntelliRencer,    95    sq. 
Kv.    Magazine.   95   sq. 
Ev.    Review.    The,    90,    93,    97    sq.. 

100   sq..   113-119,  123-132,   150,   170, 

198. 
Exiles,    Sons   of   the,   47    sq. 

I'alckner's   Swamp,  38,  51,  53  sq. 

rinns,    422,    438. 

Florida.    205. 

I'ort    Christina.    27. 

Fort    Wayne,    151-155.    160,    162,    166- 

m,    201,    214,    217,    220,    230.    245. 

265,    263.    270    sq..    275.    277.    303. 

305.  315.  327.  370.  433.  435. 
Fort    Wayne.    ColIeKC    in.    30?.    309, 

316. 
Fort   Wayne,   Seminary   in,  270-274, 

310.  315,  330,  3o0  sq.,  391,  409. 
"Four    Pointi,"    The.    218    sq.,    221. 

231,    325,    327.    335.    350,    353,    .ro. 

37S. 


I  ranckean    Syno.l,   93,    139    »q..    142, 

158,    173  178,    319,   389,    433. 
Franconian    Colonics,    2(f>,    274.    315 

»q..    363.    379. 
1  ra-.iklin   CollcKC.   81,  85. 
Fredericks.    63.    92.    94    sq. 
I'.uidamenlal     Principles.     104     sq., 

126,     134,     141-149,     156.     171.     177. 

1.8.5.   215,   221,   335,   3t)S. 
(lalciia,   CoIlcRe   in,   375    sq. 
Calcsl.urk'.   2^.   232   sq..   235   »q. 
Galcsburtf   Rule,   106.  222  sq..   340. 
Calvcstoii,    398. 
(^.cmeiniUhlatt,    320.    32'\    331. 
General     ("oiiiicil,    80.    88.    93.     Ill, 

126,    133,     137-1.'?2,    200    sq.,    212- 

256,   275   sq..  324-326.  334    sq..  339 

sq..    343.    350    sq.,    353,    369    sq.. 

375.  377.  421    sq.,  433-436. 
(ieneral    Synod,    44.    71,    78    sq..   8S- 

209,    214,    224.    229-233.    245     sq.. 

269.    275    sq..    285.    333    sq..    343, 

348    sq.,    352    sq..    370.    425.    428. 

432-436. 
General    Synod,    The    (iermans    in 

the.    187,   181.    191    sq.,   197.   201. 
•  General     Synod     of     Wis.,     Minn.. 

Mich,    and    <  itlier    Slates.     318 

336,    340. 
Georgia.    19.    46.    48.   205.   437. 
Georgia   Synod.   .50,  205   sq. 
German   Literary   Board,   199.  202. 
GermantowB,   34   sq.,   37,   51,   53,   55, 

63.   65,   68.    150. 
Gettysburg,    Seminary     in,    sl,    91, 

94   sq.,  98,   100,  105,    114.   122,  128- 

132,    147    sq.,    150,    154.    1.58,    170, 

177,    191,     l'».    204.    240    sq..    253. 

259.    26H. 
Goettingcn.   61.   71.   95.   98.   264,   314. 
Greenville,  231,  242.  253. 
Grosshenneridorf,     61,     71. 
Guntur,    194. 
(Aistavus     Adolphui    College,     234. 

243. 
Uagerstown.    90    sq..    150.    180    tq.. 

I'M.    198. 
Halle.    46.    50.    54  56.    61.    64-71.    77. 

83.    98.    105.    257.    264.    332,    348. 


464 


Tiii'ic.u.  i:s'iJi';.K. 


Hallesche    Xachrichtoii,    52,    67,    /2, 

249. 
Hancock,    Seminary    in,   422. 
Hankow,   Seminary   in,  395. 
Harrisburg,  89,  130,  l.V). 
Hartwick     Seminary,     ^1,     9.i,     191, 

229   sq.,   329. 
Hartwick    Synod,    92    sq.,    U9,    166, 

173,   176,   230,  433. 
Ilauge  Synod,  391  sq.,  399   sq.,  403, 

407. 
Hebron    Academy,   3i$. 
Hcrmannsburg,  271,  331,  3.W,  377. 
llerrnhut,  61. 
Hesse,    41,    366,    370. 
Holland,    21,    23    sq.,    26,    37,    52. 
Holstein,    27,    45. 
Holston  Synod,  80,  205,  207, 
Homiletical   Magazine,   313. 
Hospices,   313. 
Hospitals,     231,     2:^:i,     2^3     sq..     251, 

313,   394,   397,   401. 
Hungary,    248,    342. 
Hymnbook,    A   rationalistic,    84. 

Icelandic   Synod,  421. 

Illinois  Synod,  93,  142,  166,  169, 
172  sq.,  218  sq.,  226,  256,  27 0  sq., 
369,   371,  389. 

India,  61,  194,  228,  245  sq.,  311,  359, 
377,   416. 

Indianapolis  Synod,  350. 

Indiana   Synod,  79,  232,  237. 

Indians,  21  sq.,  27  sq.,  42-45,  51,  j 
55  sq.,  65,  269,  311,  315,  330,  338.  i 
377,  397.  j 

"Intuitu   fidei,"  301   sq.,  304,   354. 

Iowa    Synod,    93,    134,    142,    166,    202,    1 
214,    218    sq.,    221     sq.,    228,    239, 
269,     274-287,     300,     304-307,     324, 
351,    361-384,    426,    430.    4.14-438. 

Iowa  Synod  (English),  93,  213. 

Japan,   211,   246,   419. 
Jewish    Mission,    402. 
Jugendblatt,  377. 
Justification,  284,  300,   439. 

Kaiser swerth,  249. 
Kansas   Synod,  171,   175. 


Kirchenblalt,    365,    377    sq.,    380. 
Kirchliche    Mitteikingen,     117,    267, 

338,    389    sq. 
Kirchliche   Zeitschrift,  291,  302,  372 

sq.,    377    sq.,    381. 
Kropp,   237,   247,   .339. 

Lancaster,  53,  63,  81,  100,  118,  150, 
160,  164,  198,  214,  222,  227,  245, 
250,   254. 

I.angenberg   Society,   320-324,  331. 

Language  Question,  30,  32  sq.,  69, 
82,    84,    100,    104,    107,    129,    190, 

226.  229,   268,    356. 
Lebanon,    54,   127,    199,   250,   255. 
Lehre  und  Wehre,  288,  301,  313. 
Leipzig  Mission,  377. 

Lenoir  College,  210  sq. 

Letts,  312. 

Lewes,  27. 

Lexington,    210. 

Liberia,    194. 

Lindsborg,  234,  243. 

Liturgy,  69,   71,   76,   84,    120,   150   sq., 

154,   170,    180,  203,  250,   375. 
Lodges,    218    sq.,   224,    327,    345,   350, 

353,   357,    375,    385,    427,    435. 
London,  45,  48,  54,  61  sq.,  64,  63,  74, 

130,    312,    359,    424. 
Lord's   Day,    113,    138,   179,   284,    298. 
Lord's  Supper,  63,   73   sq.,   106,   lOS, 

115,    123,    133    sq.,    179,    187    sq., 

280,   282. 
Loysville,  196. 
Lunenburg,    45. 
Luther  Academy,   235,  243. 
Lutheran  and   Missionary,  102,  119, 

126,    132,    151,    156,    169    sq.,    249. 
Lutheran    Church    Review,    74,    89, 

227,  254. 

Lutheran     Church     Work,    04,     190, 

203. 
Lutheran    Cyclopedia,   223,   2.^4. 
Lutheraner,    Der,    117,   119,   263,   270, 

272,   285,   289,   299,   313,   X,\. 
"Lutheraneren,"  401. 
Lutheran   Evangelist,   131,   182,   184. 
Lutheran    Herold,   218,   333,    377. 
Luthera*   Magazine,   96. 


TOl'lCAL    INDEX. 


405 


Lutheran     Observer.     96,     102,     105, 

110,    119.     134. 134,    137.    139.     143. 

151-155,   169.   in,   190,   198. 
Lutheran     Quarterly.     81,     94,     109, 

129,    187,    198,    201,    203. 
Lutheran    Standarcl,     129,    357,    360, 

362. 
Lutheran,   The,   226.   250. 
Lutheran    Visitor,    213. 
Lutheran   Watchman.   413. 
Lutheran    Witness,    313. 
Lutheran    World,   203. 
Lutherische   Kirchcnfreund,  201   sq. 
Lutherische     Kirchenzeitung,     357, 

360   sq. 
Lutherische   Zeitschrift,   152. 
Lutherische   Zionsbote,    191,   202. 

Madagascar,    401    sq. 
Madison,  371,  379.  384,   400,  404,  413. 
Madras,    194. 

Manitoba   Synod.   226,   229.   238,   248. 
Mansfield.    186. 

Martin    Luther    Seminary    in    Lin- 
coln,   Neb..    175,    193. 
Maryland     Synod,     79    sq.,    90,    95, 

123.    142. 
Mass.    122.    138.    179. 
Melanchthon     Synod,     93,     130,     137 

sq.,    140,    433. 
Mendota,    379    sq. 
Mennonites,    34   sq..    55. 
Mercersburg   Theology,   118,   144. 
"Messenger,   The,"  394. 
Methodism.    83,     104,     107     sq..     Ill, 

116,    118,    120,    145,    149,    229,    265, 

415. 
Miami   Synod,  93. 
Michael's  Church,  53,  69,  71,  77,  80. 

82,    94.    250.    424. 
Michigan    Synod,   214,    218,   226,    256, 

269.   272,    337-342. 
Midland    College,    192    sq. 
Milwaukee,    243.    256.    277,    303,    305. 

310.    313.    316,    319    sq..    327,    331. 

340.    3S3,    396. 
Milwaukee,    College    in,    310. 
Milwaukee,  Seminary  in.  329. 

•30 


Ministrrium    of    Pennsylvania    (see 

Pennsylvania    Synod). 
Ministry.   Doctrine   of   the.   273   »q.. 

279.   282    sq..    292    sq.,    344,    357. 
Minneapolis,   Seminary   in,  401,  413. 
Minnesota  Synod,   166,   169,  172.  214, 

217-219,    222,     226,     256,    276     sq.. 

303,    325     sq.,    332-337.    340,     369. 

371.    434. 
"Missionary,  The,"   129,  132.  249. 
"Missionary    Messenger,"   418. 
Mission    Friends.    234. 
Missions,    Foreign,  56,  192,  19-1,  211, 

245    sq.,    311,    330,    338,    359,    377. 

394.  397,   401.   403.   409.   419. 
Missions,    Home.    195.    203,    211,    243 

sq.,    246,    265,    312,    330,    338,    358, 

395,  397,    401,   419. 
.Missions,    Inner,   244,   359,    419. 
Mississippi  Synod,  205,  207. 
Missouri     Synod,    93     sq.,    97,     117, 

119,  131,  134,  137,  169  sq.,  173, 
214,  218-221,  256-336,  344  sq.,  350- 
371,  375,  383-385,  409  sq.,  426. 
428,    430-435. 

Missouri  Synod,  English  Confer- 
ence  of    the,   80,   256. 

Monroe,  340. 

Moravians,  49,  56,  65  sq.,  81  sq.. 
198,    229,    414. 

.Morehead,    College    in.    400. 

Mount  Airy,  Seminary  in,  126,  146, 
148,  151,  167,  212  sq.,  228,  230. 
240,  242,  247,  249  iq.,  253  sq., 
268,   304. 

Mount  Pleasant,  Seminary  in,  209 
sq. 

Mount    Pulaski,    173. 

Muhlenberg  College.  228.  235,  242. 
251-254.   330,   378. 

Muhlenberg   Mission.    194. 

Muscatine,   377. 

Muskego,    390,    408,    413. 

.Nebraska    District   Synod,   256,   318, 

342. 
Nebraska    Synod,    English.    175. 
Nebraska  Synod,   (ierman,    175,   187, 

191.    193,   201    sq. 
Negro   Mission,  277,  312,   331. 


466 


TOPICAL    INDEX. 


Nucndettelsau,  117,  270  sq.,  294, 
338,  363-367,  371   sq.,  377-380. 

New  Amsterdam,  21  sq.,  25  sq., 
413. 

Newberry,  College  in,  133,  210,  212. 

New   England,   107   sq.,   437. 

New  Guinea,  377. 

New  Hanover,  38,  S3  sq.,  61,  63,  68. 

New   Holland,   53. 

"Newlanders,  The,"  52. 

New   Measures,   109,   111,   130,   352. 

New  Netherlands,   21    sq.,   413. 

New   Orleans,   261,   310,   313,   331. 

New  Sweden,  32. 

New   Ulm,    College    in,    337. 

New  Ulm,  Seminary  in,  318,   337. 

New  York,  19,  25  sq.,  39,  41  sq., 
44  sq.,  51,  69,  75,  77,  82,  93,  97, 
101,  109,  114,  203,  243  sq.,  248, 
254,  267,  275  sq.,  313,  336,  382, 
398,  414,   423,  425,   427   sq. 

New  York  and  New  England 
Synod,  226,   228,  230,  239. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  Synod, 
173,    176,   230. 

New  York  Ministerium,  77,  80, 
83,  85,  90-96,  101  sq.,  115,  130, 
139,  141  sq.,  154,  166,  172-176, 
179,  191-194,  218,  223,  226,  228-230, 
239,  242,  275,  321,  348,  425,  428. 

Noerdlinger   Sonntagsblatt,    267. 

North  Carolina  Synod,  78  sq.,  89 
sq.,   137,  205   sq.,  211,   348. 

Northern  Illinois  Synod,  93,  136 
sq.,  139,  142,  161,  166,  232  sq., 
311,   391,  398. 

Northern  Indiana   Synod,  93,   166. 

Northfield,  College  in,  400. 

Northfield,    Seminary    in,    278,    413. 

Northwest,  Synod  of  the,  228,  237 
sq.,  241. 

Norwegian  Church  of  Lutheran 
Brethren,  403. 

Norwegian  Free  Church,  400-403, 
412. 

Norwegians,  25,  137,  232  sq.,  304- 
307,    386-415,    434-438. 

Norwegian  Synod,  169,  214,  217, 
256,  276-278,  300,  303  sq.,  310, 
327   sq.,   386-399,   410,   413. 


Norwegian,    United,    304,    397    sq., 

400-403. 
Nova   Scotia  Synod,  228,  239. 

Oakland,   Cal.,   310. 

Ohio,  78,  80,  117,  126,  169  sq.,  265, 
273. 

Ohio  District  Synod,  228,  231  sq. 

Ohio,  Joint  Synod  of,  78,  88,  90, 
<il,  99,  116,  145,  211,  214,  217-221, 
225,  231  sq.,  256,  268  sq.,  272, 
276  sq.,  303  sq.,  307,  327  sq.,  344, 
347-362,  370,  373,  375,  425,  428, 
432-438. 

Ohio  Synod,  English,  92,  166,  172, 
214,   218. 

Ohio  Synod,  English  District  of 
the,  218  sq.,  237,  350,  352  sq., 
356. 

"Olive    Branch,    The,"    129. 

Olive    Branch    Synod,   93,    126,    142. 

Open  Questions,  284,  287,  290-299, 
307,    325,    344,    357. 

Opus  Operatum,  179. 

Ordination,  39,  S3  sq.,  56,  66,  11,  75, 
146,  177  sq.,  198,  211-213,  235, 
251,  253  sq.,  259,  269,  280,  282  sq., 
285,  293  sq.,  331  sq.,  347,  371, 
378  sq.,  383  sq.,  388-392,  395, 
407-409,   413,   416. 

Orphanages,  98,  196,  231,  235,  243, 
312,  377,  394  sq.,  397,  401  sq., 
419    sq. 

Pacific  Synod,   228,  238. 

Palatinate,  40  sq.,  44,  51,  57,  77. 

"Palmblaetter,"   321. 

Papacy,    296-298. 

Parent    Education    Society,    193. 

Parochial  Schools,  273,  345  sq.,  357, 

391,   409,   422. 
Pastoral  Letter,  Grabau's,  275,  279, 

282,   383. 
Pastors'    Fund,   1S>6. 
Pelagianism,  110. 
Pennsylvania,    19,    36    sq.,    45    sq., 

51     sq.,     54-56,    62,    64,    11,     100, 

118,  211,   423-425,   437  sq. 
Pennsylvania      College,      128,      131, 

193,    198,   200. 


ToHK  \i.   iNi>r:x. 


467 


Pennsylvania  Synod  (or  Ministe- 
riura  of  Pennsylvania),  33,  44, 
59,  68-70,  75,  79  sq.,  84  sq.,  89- 
99,  102,  116,  118,  132,  139,  HI- 
TS, 194,  206,  211,  214,  217,  224, 
226,  228  sq.,  240-250,  265,  275, 
324,  334,  347  sq.,  352.  425.  428, 
432-434. 

Pennsylvania,  University  of,  80, 
90,    129,    150,   212,   230.    254. 

Perry  County.  Mo.,  261,  309  sq., 
315. 

Persians,   312. 

Philadelphia,  28  sq.,  35,  51-55,  61- 
68,  71,  73  sq.,  82,  94.  113.  123. 
127,  132,  150.  212.  243.  246.  249 
sq.,   253   sq.,  269,  348,  360. 

Philadelphia,  Seminary  in,  see 
Mount     Airy. 

Pittsburg  Synod,  93,  142  sq.,  146, 
154,  161,  166.  172  sq.,  179.  214. 
218,  226,  228,  230,  232,  236,  239, 
242. 

Poles,  312. 

Portland,   Ore.,   310. 

Porto   Rico,   248. 

Practice  of  the  General  Council, 
247. 

Practice  of  the  General  -Synod, 
185    sq. 

Practice  of   the   Iowa   Synod,  374. 

Practice   of   the  Ohio   Synod,  357. 

Practice  of  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference,   343. 

Predestination,    see    Election. 

Presbyterians,  83,  89,  105  sq.,  108, 
120,    1.13,    185,    340. 

Princeton,  81,   107,  121,   129   sq.,   198. 

Private  Confession,  123,  138,  179, 
375. 

Providence.  53  sq..  61  sq.,  68,  70, 
75. 

Prussia,   47,   282,   381   sq. 

Pulpit     I-ellowship,     186,     327,     335, 

344,    350,    425. 
Puritanism,    104,    107,    113    sq..    116, 
119    sq.,    131,   145. 

Quakers,   24,   34    sq..  37,    132. 
Quarterly    Review,    129,   169,    174. 


Kajahmumlry,  245. 

Raritan,    38.    53.    69. 

Rationalism,    78,     83     sq.,     101,     130, 

229,  257-259,  264,  386,  409,  431  sq., 

439. 
Reading.    51,    92,    133,    214,    217    sq., 

220,  231,  253,  275,  327,  334,  370. 
Redemptinners,    52. 
Red    Wins,    234. 
Red    Wing,    Seminary    in,    in    sq., 

397. 
Reformed,   22   sq.,   26,   53,   55   sq.,  64, 

73,  81,  85,  91,  99  sq.,  102,   104  sq., 

107,     110,     115    sq.,    118,     144    sq., 

176,    185,    249,    322,    352.    381.    423. 

425,   431. 
Revivals,   99,    107    sq..    110.    116.    11« 

sq.,   144. 
Revolutionary     War.    83.     107,     137, 

206,  210,   212,   323,  377.  396. 
Rhinebeck,    42,   83,    139. 
Richmond   Theses,   373,   436,   451-453. 
River    Forest,    Normal    School    in, 

310. 
Roanoke    College,    200.    210,    213. 
Rock     Island,     Seminary     in,     234, 

241,   252. 
Rocky    Mountain   Synod.   175. 
Rostock,   304,    367. 

Sacraments,  55,  73,  106,  114  sq., 
138,  179,  187  sq.,  215  sq..  2.14, 
280    sq.,    292. 

Saginaw.   274.   318.   362.   375.  379. 

Saginaw.  Michigan  Synod's  Sem- 
inary  in.  341. 

Salem.   Va.,  210. 

Salisbury,   N.   C,   78. 

.Salzburgers,    The,    46-50,    57.   62. 

Samalkot.    245. 

Sanatorium,    313,    419. 

.Saskatoon,   Seminary   in,   238. 

•'Saxons,  The."  2.57.  264.  269-r2. 
381. 

.Saxony,   Free  Church  in,  312,  316. 

.Schmid's    Doctrinal    Theology,    117. 

.Schoharie.   19,   42  46.   51,   64,  06.   l.W. 

-Seattle,   Seminary   in.  239. 


468 


TOPICAL    INDEX. 


Selinsgrove,    Seminary    in,    130. 
Settlements,  German  Luth.,  19,  38, 

41    sq.,    46,    51. 
Seventh  Day   Baptists,    55. 
Silvah,    248. 

.Sioux    Falls,    Seminary    in,    397. 
Slovaks,    256,    312,    342. 
Smalcald  Articles,  74,  184,  217,  283, 

296. 
Socinianism,   83,   101    sq.,    176. 
Somerset,  79,  347,  360. 
South  Carolina   Synod,   81,   92,    137, 

205,   210. 

South   Illinois   Synod,   93. 
Southwest    Virginia    Synod,    205. 
Spokane,   College   in,   400. 
Spottsylvania,   51,   53. 
Springfield,   111.,    Seminary    in,   233, 

235,  269,  311,  315,  343,  396. 
Springfield,    O.,    Seminary    in,    156, 

191. 
St.  Ansgar,  398   sq.,  408,  416. 
St.   Chrischona,  201,  334,   337,  339. 
St.    Louis,    Seminary    in,    264,    270, 

272,    300,    309-311,    315    sq.,    326, 

329,  360  sq.,  396,  412   sq. 
Stockholm,    26,    235. 
St.    Paul,    College    in,    310. 
St.    Paul,     Luther    Seminary,    397, 

400. 
St.  Paul,  Seminary  in,  351,  357,  359, 

361. 
St.     Sebald,    304,    363-366,    372,    375, 

378-380. 

Susquehanna  Synod,  175. 

Susquehanna  University,  192  sq. 

Sweden,  22,  28-30,  98,  233   sq. 

Swedes'   Church,   30. 

Swedish  Lutherans  (see  Augustana 
Synod),  19,  25  sq.,  30  sq.,  39,  57, 
59,  68-74,  82,  136  sq.,  174,  223, 
232,  243,  248,  391,  415,  423,  434  sq. 

Symbols,  72  sq.,  119,  125-127,  130, 
134  sq.,  143,  147,  149,  170,  183, 
208,  281,  288-290,  321,  338,  350, 
352,    367    sq.,    434. 

Synergism,    306   sq.,    355,   405. 

Synodical  Conference,  88,  196,  217, 
256-346,  354,  396  sq.,  404,  435   sq. 


Tennessee,   78,    80,   108,   139,   205. 
Tennessee    Synod,    78    sq.,    90,    105, 

116,  119,    145,    205,    207,   211,    237, 
352,   425,   432. 

Texas   Synod,   93,   161,   218    sq.,   228, 

239,   373,   378. 
Theological    Magazine,   360. 
Theological   Quarterly,   313. 
Theologische   Quartalschrift,  331. 
Theologische   Zeitblaetter,  357,  361. 
Thiel    College,    212,    231,    242,    249, 

253,   380. 
Thirty  Years'  War,  34,   40,  61. 
Toledo,  289,  359,  365,  367,  377,  379. 
Toledo    Theses,    357,    362,    368,    373, 

448-451. 
Transference,    Doctrine    of    a,    292, 

294. 
Transsubstantiation,   179. 
Trappe,   53   sq.,  75,  424. 
Tulpehoken,  51,  53,  63-66,  216. 

Union,    74,   85.    87,   91,   99,   107,    115- 

117,  144,    176,    207,    220,    228,    268, 
275,   323,   338,   381-383,   432,   436. 

Unionism,   73,  81,   106,   114,  121,   185, 

286,    291,    323    sq.,    335,    344,    352, 

357,  369,  432. 
Union  Synod,  237. 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  203. 
Unitarians,    83. 
United   Brethren,   186. 
United   Lutheran,   401. 
United  Synod  of  the  South,  49  sq., 

80,  88,   138,   180,  205-213,  246,   343, 

434. 
Usury,  284,  299,   301. 
Utah,   398. 

Virginia,  53,  78,   211. 
Virginia   Synod,    137,   205    sq. 
Visitations,    375. 

Wagner    College,   230,   242. 
Walhalla,   210. 

Walther   College,   St.    Louis,  310. 
Wartburg  Seminary,  see  Dubuque, 

371,  375. 
Wartburg     Synod,     173,     175,     191, 

201   sq. 


TOPICAL    INDRX. 


469 


Waterloo.   OiU..  2J0,   J.V,  239,  241. 
Waitrtown,  315   sq. 
Watertown,   College   in,  316,   318. 
Watertown,    Seminary    in,    322,   326, 

329,    331    sq.,    336. 
Watts'    Memorial    College,    194. 
Wauwatosa,    Seminary    in,   277,   318, 

329. 
Waverly,    376    sq.,    379. 
West    Camp,   42-44. 
Western      Theological       Seminary, 

175,    192. 
West    Pennsylvania    Synod,   92,    96. 
West   Virginia   Synod,   138,   206. 
Wheeling,    Convention    in,    304  ,106, 

351,    354. 
Wicaco,    29.    39. 
Wilmington,   27,   29,   212. 
Winchester,   161. 
Winfield,   College   in,   310. 
Winnipeg,    Seminary    in,   421. 


Wiiiotisin  Synod,  lo9,  214,  218  kj., 
226,    276    sq.,    286.    303,    305,    319- 

336,  340-342,     350,     369,     371     sq.. 
384,   434. 

Wittenberg  College,  92,  98.  130, 
193,    198    sq.,   202    sq..    256. 

Wittenberg  Seminary,  183,  199  sq., 
203. 

Wittenberg  Synod,   93,   126. 

Women's  Missionary  Hospital,  194. 

Woodville,    358. 

Wiiertemberg,    41,    44,    68,    249    sq., 

337,  339,   360. 

York,  133,  139  sq..  146  sq..  151  170. 
178- 181.    187,    198. 

Zeitschrift  fuer  Kirchengeschichte, 

187,    296. 
Zeuge    der    Wahrheit,    276. 


.•*i  •. 


"    14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

book  is  due  on  the  last  date  f-ped  below,  or 


the  date  to  which  renewed. 

.^uc  .r^  cub  ert  to  immediate  recall. 


This 


Renewed  books  are  subjert 


-woTT^^^^^^^'^'^' 


LD  21A-40ni-4,'63 
(D647lBl0)476B 


General  Library     . 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 


Vlj  33627 


*-w»i> 


ivil2655;L 

NIG 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


\Yiy:r 


